Security Bank v. Bell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county upon a promissory note made by defendant to plaintiff. The answer admits the making and delivery of the note, but denies any consideration for it.
Read the full summary
Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county upon a promissory note made by defendant to plaintiff. The answer admits the making and delivery of the note, but denies any consideration for it. Upon the trial, before Lochren, J., and a jury, it appeared that the defendant gave the note, at plaintiff’s solicitation, as collateral security for a-past-due note (for the same amount) of defendant’s son, who had just failed in business, and that there was no other consideration for it. The court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
There was no conflict in the evidence as to the transaction upon which the note sued on was given, and there is no question that it showed an entire want of consideration.
Order affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- First National Bank of Poteau v. AllenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- First State Bank of Nortonville v. MortonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Turle v. SargentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Nichols & Shepard Co. v. DedrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Bank of Montreal v. BeecherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.