Spiering v. Spiering
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Lac qui Parle county to recover $500 on a promissory note. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Qvale, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, and made findings that the note be reformed by the insertion of the word “hundred,” and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Erom the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
This action was to recover on a promissory note. The complaint alleged the execution and delivery of the note by defendant to plaintiff, that the true consideration thereof and the amount intended by the parties to be inserted therein and agreed thereby to be paid was five hundred dollars, but that by a mistake of the person who drew the note the word “hundred” was inadvertently omitted between the words “five” *120and dollars, though where the amount was expressed in figures, it was correctly written “$500.00.” Plaintiff asked that the mistake be corrected, and that he have judgment for $500 and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Busjahn v. McLeanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hannah v. State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Bradford-Kennedy Co. v. KennySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. RayCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984