Legal Opinion

Winkler v. Veigel

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 8, 1929No. 27,072PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

In overruling a demurrer to the complaint the court certified the questions presented important and doubtful. Defendant appeals. The substantial facts stated in the complaint are these:

The Farmers State Bank of Holdingford is in the hands of defendant for liquidation. While it was a going concern plaintiffs paid to the bank as their agent $253.23 to be remitted to the county treasurer at St. Cloud for payment of taxes for 1926 upon certain real estate owned by them in Stearns county and received from the cashier of the bank a receipt so stating. The sum so receipted for was paid to the bank…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. The People v. . the City Bank of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Stoller v. CoatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
  3. Federal Reserve Bank v. PetersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924
  4. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hanover State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
  5. Messenger v. Carroll Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. Suffolk Franklin Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  2. Ottawa Banking & Trust Co. v. Crookston State Bank Ex Rel. VeigelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. In re Jayne & MasonNew York Supreme Court · 1931
  4. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Bank of OtoeNebraska Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Emerson v. Citizens State Bank Ex Rel. VeigelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API