D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Stone
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff, a corporation, brought this action in the district court for Nobles county, on a note made by defendant Carr, on which was endorsed a guaranty signed in the name of the firm of Bennett & Stone, off-which firm defendant Stone was a member.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff, a corporation, brought this action in the district court for Nobles county, on a note made by defendant Carr, on which was endorsed a guaranty signed in the name of the firm of Bennett & Stone, off-which firm defendant Stone was a member. Stone answered separately, admitting the making of the note and the prior existence of the partnership, alleging that the guaranty was made, in the firm name, without his knowledge, consent or authority, by defendant Bennett, and denying the existence of the partnership at the time of the making of the guaranty. The action was tried by Severance,…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
For present purposes this may be regarded as an action against the firm of Bennett & Stone, upon an alleged guaranty of an obligation of defendant Carr. Stone, alone answering, denies that the guaranty was executed by the firm. This denial raises the material issue in the case. It may be assumed that the two defendants, Bennett and Stone, were partners in business as the firm of Bennett & Stone during the year 1876. To prove that the guaranty was that, of the firm, plaintiffs offered in evidence the following documents, viz.: (1) The alleged guaranty; (2) a written instrument, antedating the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rollins v. StevensSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1850
- Hooper & Frazier v. J. L. Farwell & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- Van Dyke v. SeelyeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- In Re Petition of Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Slipp v. HartleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892