First National Bank v. Steele
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Edward H. Steele, from an order of tbe District Court of Hennepin County, Thom,as Canty, J., made December 2,1893, denying his motion for a new trial. On January 1, 1889, defendant made and delivered to the plaintiff, the First National Bank of Minneapolis, his promissory note for $20,009.44 due two years thereafter with interest annually at eight per centum per annum. This action was upon the note to recover judgment for the amount due upon it.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Edward H. Steele, from an order of tbe District Court of Hennepin County, Thom,as Canty, J., made December 2,1893, denying his motion for a new trial. On January 1, 1889, defendant made and delivered to the plaintiff, the First National Bank of Minneapolis, his promissory note for $20,009.44 due two years thereafter with interest annually at eight per centum per annum. This action was upon the note to recover judgment for the amount due upon it. Defendant answered that on August 8, 1888, he was insolvent and made a general assignment of his property to Whipple Andrews…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
Plaintiff’s first six assignments of error may be all summed up in the proposition that the note sued on was void under *128the familiar rule announced in Newell v. Higgins, 55 Minn. 82 (56 N. W. 577,) that where a creditor, who signs a composition agreement with Ms debtor, by which to induce other creditors to sign it, makes a private bargain with the debtor, the effect of wMch is to place such creditor in a better position than the other creditors, he thereby commits a fraud upon them, and such private bargain is void. The trial court correctly instructed the jury to that effect, but left it to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Adolph v. Minneapolis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Newell v. HigginsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Adolph v. Minneapolis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894