Legal Opinion

City Bank v. Doll

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 3, 1885PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Henne-pin county, Young, J., presiding, striking out the answer as sham.

1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.

The action is upon a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the order of Kemper Bros. & Drahmann, at their office in Perham, Minnesota, and indorsed to the plaintiff. An answer was interposed, alleging payment of the note to Kemper Bros. & Drahmann at their office in Perham, and that they were the agents of the plaintiff, authorized to collect and receive payment of the note. This answer was verified by the defendant. Upon affidavits of the president and the cashier of the plaintiff, alleging that Kemper Bros. & Drahmann were not, and had never been, the agents of the plaintiff for…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Van Loon v. GriffinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  2. First National Bank v. LangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API