Linn v. Rugg
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by the second indorsee of a negotiable note against the maker. The defendant in his answer alleged that the note was not transferred by the payee until after its maturity, and that, prior to such transfer, the defendant had become the assignee of a debt due from the payee to the defendant’s father, greater in amount than the sum due upon the note.
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by the second indorsee of a negotiable note against the maker. The defendant in his answer alleged that the note was not transferred by the payee until after its maturity, and that, prior to such transfer, the defendant had become the assignee of a debt due from the payee to the defendant’s father, greater in amount than the sum due upon the note. The plaintiff replied “ to the counter-claim alleged in the answer,” denying “ each and every allegation in said answer respecting the said counter-claim.” After a trial by jury and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McMillan, J.
The note sued upon was dated May 28th, 1866, and was payable on demand to the order of one E. S. Riddell; it was endorsed by Riddell to M. S. James, and by James to Linn, the plaintiff.
James testifies that the endorsement by Riddell to himself was made in August, 1870, and the endorsement by him to the plaintiff about May, 187L
The statutes of our state provide that “in case of an assignment of a thing in action, the action of the assignee is without prejudice to any set-off, or other defense existing at the time of, or before notice of the assignment; but this section…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vassear v. . LivingstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Swift v. FletcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
- Thompson v. SicklesNew York Supreme Court · 1866