Legal Opinion

Merchants National Bank v. Coyle

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 17, 1919No. 21,302PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Action in the district court for Becker county to recover $2,300 upon a promissory note. The amended answer of defendant’s guardian ad litem alleged that, while defendant was insane and known to the officers of plaintiff bank to be insane, they and the promoters of the Gagnon Shoe Company induced defendant to subscribe for certain shares of stock in that company, and to induce him to subscribe the officers of plaintiff bank offered to loan defendant the sum of $2,300 to pay…

Read the full summary

Action in the district court for Becker county to recover $2,300 upon a promissory note. The amended answer of defendant’s guardian ad litem alleged that, while defendant was insane and known to the officers of plaintiff bank to be insane, they and the promoters of the Gagnon Shoe Company induced defendant to subscribe for certain shares of stock in that company, and to induce him to subscribe the officers of plaintiff bank offered to loan defendant the sum of $2,300 to pay for the stock, and did so loan him the money in exchange for his note. The case was tried before Boeser, J., who when…

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Action on a promissory note. There was a verdict for the -plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. On December 27, 1916, the defendant borrowed $2,300 of the plaintiff and gave his promissory note due in one year. The defense is that he was insane at the time and that the plaintiff knew his condition or was charged with- notice which would have led to knowledge. He had not been adjudged insane.

The court charged the jury that the defendant, to maintain his defense, must prove two things: “First, that he was at that time insane; and second, that the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Scott v. HaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  2. Schaps v. LehnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Youn v. LamontSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Czyrson v. Roseau County National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API