Levering & Morton v. Washington
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR RAMSEY COUNTY. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs in Error: There is no better settled principle in the commercial law, than that as between the original parties to a note or its transfer, a party apparently liable on the face of the instrument to the holder, may, for any cause, show by parol that in point of fact he is not so liable.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR RAMSEY COUNTY. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs in Error: There is no better settled principle in the commercial law, than that as between the original parties to a note or its transfer, a party apparently liable on the face of the instrument to the holder, may, for any cause, show by parol that in point of fact he is not so liable. Thus, it is a familiar principle that a party may show by •way of defence, want, failure, or illegality of consideration. It is also a principle equally familiar that a party…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
— Atwater, J.
This case comes up.on Writ of Error to the District Court of Pamsey County, -the Plaintiffs in Error being Defendants below. The cause of action arose upon a promissory note, reading as follows, viz:
$202,00. St. Paul, Aug. 27, 1857.
Twelve months after date I promise to pay to the order of Andrew Levering and William H. Morton, assignees, two hundred and two dollars, with interest at three per cent, per month, value received.
WM. II. EANDALL.
The amended complaint alleges in substance, that on or about the 12th of October, 1857, the Plaintiff had owned and was seized and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Youngberg v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Barnard v. GaslinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- First National Bank of St. Paul v. National Marine Bank of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873