Legal Opinion
Pilney v. Funk
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 15, 1942No. Nos. 33,055, 33,084PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Julius J. Olson, Justice.
Plaintiff, claiming to be a holder in due course of a promissory note for $300, dated October 8, 1931, due on demand, with interest at six per cent, and bearing on its face only the purported signature of “Mrs. John Funk,” brought this action against her and also her son John C. Funk. The complaint alleges that “according to the best information and belief * * * defendant, John C. Funk, frequently acted as an agent * * * of his mother,” defendant Bertha; that “the note above referred to was signed as above indicated by * * * John C. Funk in behalf of his mother * * *…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sache v. WallaceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security v. CanterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Isensee Motors v. RandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- High v. Supreme LodgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- Casey Pure Milk Co. v. Booth Fisheries Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sommers v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Duenow v. LindemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- United Accounts, Incorporated v. LantzNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
- Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Dockendorf v. LakieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.