Misener v. Gould
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the District Court for Rice county, and was .tried by the court without a jury. In the decision of the court below, the facts are found substantially as follows: Prior to and on the 4th Sept., 1858, the plaintiff, Misener, and the defendant, Van Brunt, were engaged in business as co-partners, under the firm name of Van Brunt & Misener, and owned and occupied lot 1, block 45, in Faribault, on which was a store, as tenants in common.
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the District Court for Rice county, and was .tried by the court without a jury. In the decision of the court below, the facts are found substantially as follows: Prior to and on the 4th Sept., 1858, the plaintiff, Misener, and the defendant, Van Brunt, were engaged in business as co-partners, under the firm name of Van Brunt & Misener, and owned and occupied lot 1, block 45, in Faribault, on which was a store, as tenants in common. The firm was indebted to defendants, Gould & Bro., in about the sum-of $1400 00, to one Parish $1000 00, and to Wadsworth & Wells, $400…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
McMillan, J.
-It is admitted by the appellants, that upon the facts found by the Court, the plaintiff stood in the relation of surety for Yan Brunt, as to the'indebtedness of the firm of Misener & Yan Brunt, and that the defendants, Goulds, had full notice of that fact, and by their own action in delivering to Yan Brunt, property of the firm, which they held in trust to pay the debts, the plaintiff was discharged from all liability as such surety, and his property released from the mortgage given to secure the Goulds’ debt. But it is urged that the time for the plaintiff to have…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bidwell v. WhitneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Bennett v. HealeySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861