Vetsch v. Neiss
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant Nicholas Georges from an order of tbe district court for Wright county, Pond, J., denying a motion for a new trial. It was a question of fact for the jury whether it was necessary to borrow this money. Irvine v. Myers, 4 Minn. 164 (229); Heenan v. .Nash, 8 Minn. 365 (407).
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Action upon a promissory note alleged to have been made by defendants, as co-partners. The plaintiff was an indorsee after maturity. The answering defendant admitted the existence of a partnership for a specified purpose between the defend.ants, and then alleged that the note was executed and delivered by his co-partner, without his knowledge or consent, and that the sole and only consideration therefor was a private debt due from such partner to the payee named in the note. These were the issues upon which the parties,, went to trial; and, at the conclusion of the evidence, the court, upon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Irwin v. WilliarSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Dowling v. Exchange Bank of BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- First National Bank v. WebsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- First National Bank of Browerville v. StaddenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Bow v. Young YungHawaii Supreme Court · 1899