Legal Opinion

Rye v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 25, 1938No. 31,787PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stone, Justice.

Action by indorsee, not a holder in due course, upon a promissory note. The complaint avers certain indorsements of payment which indicate that the statute of limitations had not run.. The answer tendered judgment for an admitted balance, but interposed a defense as to the amount over and above that sum. The defense was wiped out as matter of law by the direction of a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

There has been some argument for defendant about the statute of limitations. That defense is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schmitt v. HagerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  2. Oien v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
  3. Board of County Commissioners v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  4. Trunkey v. CrosbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Mattfeld v. NesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  2. Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
  4. Olson v. PenkertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  5. Yin v. Amino Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943

18 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