Dunning v. Pond
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants: I. Tbe answers of tbe several Defendants, Dunning and Stone respectively, show a good defence to the action, and it was therefore erroneous for tbe referee to give judgment upon tbe pleadings without any proof whatever. II.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants: I. Tbe answers of tbe several Defendants, Dunning and Stone respectively, show a good defence to the action, and it was therefore erroneous for tbe referee to give judgment upon tbe pleadings without any proof whatever. II. Tbe Defendant, Stone, was a mere accommodation maker, and entitled to tbe benefits of all tbe equities existing between Dunning and tbe payee of said notes. 1 Denio, 583; 15 John. 270; 10 lb. 231. III. That tbe pleadings (answers) show an éntire want of consideration for said notes…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
AtwateR, J.
Tbis action was brought by tbe Respondent in tbe District Court of Ramsey County, to recover tbe amount of three promissory notes, each for tbe sum of $227, and bearing date October 23,1857, due in two, three, and four months respectively, and payable to tbe order of W. L. Yates, assignee of W. L. Earwell & Co. Tbe complaint alleges tbat the notes were executed by Dunning, and at tbe time said notes were made, and for tbe consideration therein expressed, tbe Defendant, Stone, endorsed them, and delivered tbe same to tbe payee, Yates, by whom, for a valuable…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Heffner v. GunzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Hayes County v. WilemanNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Easton v. ChildsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Slocum v. McLarenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- State ex rel. Wilberg v. McNaughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924