Porter v. Winona & Dakota Grain Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Winona county to recover a balance of $1,800 on a promissory note purporting to be executed by defendant company to the order of defendant W. H. Garlock and by him indorsed. The case was tried before Snow, J., who granted a motion to dismiss the action as against defendant Garlock, and directed a verdict in favor of defendant company. From a judgment entered pursuant to the order of dismissal and the verdict, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The note in controversy here was made payable to the order of W. H. Garlock, and signed, “The Winona & Dakota Grain Co., by W. H. Garlock, Pres.” It was then indorsed on the back by Gar-lock, and delivered to plaintiff’s agent for her. Garlock was the president of the grain company at the time of the transaction.
1. Plaintiff’s counsel raises some question as to whether the execution of the note was denied under oath by the person executing it. G. S. 1894, § 5751. But this is wholly immaterial. The answer of the grain company was good as a pleading, for it put in issue the execution and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Anderson v. KissamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
- Wilbur v. HoughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Chemical National Bank v. WagnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1892
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. DoucetteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Coon v. PrudenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Mooney v. Mooney Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912
- Capital City Brick Co. v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Peteler Car Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Corning Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Africa v. Duluth News Tribune Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.