Hooper v. Pike
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal. court of St. Paul, Twohy, J., denying his motion for a new trial. Against plaintiff’s objection the court should not have permitted defendant, the father, to prove that he was surety.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal. court of St. Paul, Twohy, J., denying his motion for a new trial. Against plaintiff’s objection the court should not have permitted defendant, the father, to prove that he was surety. Anderson v. Anderson, 4 Dana (Ky.) 352; Diversv v. Moor, 22 111. 331; Marsh v. Low, 55 Ind. 271; Cronise v. Kellogg, 20 111. 11; Nowak v. Excelsior, 78 111. 307; Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. 484; Fentum v. Pocock, 5 Taunt. 192; Nichols v. Norris, 3 Barn. & Ad. 41. Rule as to parol evidence to vary contract by blank indorsement. Charles v. Denis, 42 Wis. 56; Smith v.…
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
On November 26, 1889, the defendant Charles Eliot Pike was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $200, for which the latter held the note of the former, who on that day drew on his father, the defendant C. E. Pike, a draft in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $200, due in 90 days from that date, with interest on that sum at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum. ' The draft was accepted by the father, and delivered to plaintiff, who thereupon .surrendered the note. This action was brought on the draft. The court below found in favor of the father, C. E. Pike, and from an order denying a new trial…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Turle v. SargentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Nichols & Shepard Co. v. DedrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
3Cited by3 opinions
- J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. McCallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- MacKenzie v. Summit National Bank of St. PaulCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- German National Bank v. BarberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914