Pence v. Gale
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action upon a promissor}’ note by the payees against the makers. At the trial in the district court for Hennepin county, it appeared that the note was given for money loaned by the plaintiffs to the defendants Mitchell and Frank Gale, partners as Mitchell & Gale, and was signed by the defendant S. C. Gale, solely for their accommodation, he receiving no part of the consideration, and that his character of surety was known. to the plaintiffs at the time the note was given.
Read the full summary
Action upon a promissor}’ note by the payees against the makers. At the trial in the district court for Hennepin county, it appeared that the note was given for money loaned by the plaintiffs to the defendants Mitchell and Frank Gale, partners as Mitchell & Gale, and was signed by the defendant S. C. Gale, solely for their accommodation, he receiving no part of the consideration, and that his character of surety was known. to the plaintiffs at the time the note was given. The firm of Mitchell & Gale was afterwards dissolved, Mitchell retaining the partnership property. Mitchell was…
1Opinion of the Court
*259 By the Court.
Berry, J.
I. The appellant tabes the position that the dismissal of the proceedings in bankruptcy against B. E. Mitchell, and the restoration of his property to him at the request of plaintiffs, (among other creditors,) were, in effect, a release of collateral security for the note upon which the action is brought, and upon which he, (the appellant,) is surety. His claim is, that this release operates to discharge his liability upon the note. For the purposes of this case it may be admitted, (without inquiry,) that the effect of the dismissal of proceedings, etc., was to release…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Willis v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rollins v. St. Paul Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Musser v. McCornick & Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1920
- Troll v. Daugherty & Bush Real Estate Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914