Legal Opinion

Metropolitan National Bank v. Bolduc

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 3, 1924No. 23,969Published

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Action upon two promissory notes. The defense was the statute of limitations. A verdict was directed for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

The facts are not in dispute. On May 26, 1914, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a note for $17,000, and on *147June 17, 1914, another for $13,000. He deposited as collateral to the first note a note of the Minneapolis & Northern Railway Company payable to him for $17,000. The note was guaranteed by one Heaton. He deposited as collateral to the second note a like…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wolford v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
  2. Atwood v. LammersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. Carlson v. DixonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Fletcher v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
  5. Divine v. MillerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904

1 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