Cross v. White
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $5,-862.21 on a bond executed by defendant White as plaintiff’s guardian and by defendants Norris and McDonnell as sureties. The case was tried before Moer, J., who found in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants Norris and McDonnell appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The facts are short. On January 15, 1894, defendant White was duly appointed guardian of the estate and property of plaintiff, who was then a minor, and thereafter duly qualified as such, and entered upon the discharge of his duties. To secure the faithful discharge of his duty, he duly executed to the probate court of St. Louis county the usual bond, which the defendants Norris and McDonnell signed and executed as sureties. The bond is in the usual form of such instruments, and is similar to that construed in the case…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beauchaine v. McKinnonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Jacobson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ParkerWyoming Supreme Court · 1912
- Langdon v. LangdonNebraska Supreme Court · 1920
- Lyngen v. TessumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Winjum v. JestenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.