Holden v. O'Brien
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Ensign and Cant, JJ., affirming an order of the municipal court of Duluth denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
Action upon a promissory note. Defense: Want of consideration; that it was executed and delivered to a third party by the defendant on a Sunday; that the date — January 25, 1898 — was not the true date of its execution and delivery; and that appellant had due notice of those facts when he came into possession of the note. The cause was tried and submitted to the jury upon these several defenses, and a general verdict was returned for the defendant.
The appeal calls for the consideration of the following questions:
First. Was the note void by reason of the fact that it was executed and delivered…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Ward v. WardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
3Cited by7 opinions
- J. R. Watkins Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Lindemann v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- State v. WeissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- State ex rel. Sizemore v. State Election BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.