Rye v. Phillips
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Schmitt v. HagerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Oien v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- Board of County Commissioners v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Trunkey v. CrosbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
3Cited by23 opinions
- Mattfeld v. NesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Olson v. PenkertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Yin v. Amino Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.