Banning v. Hall
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Cant, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The issues should have been submitted to the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Cant, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The issues should have been submitted to the jury. G-. S. 1894, §§ 2217, 5861; Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 72 (90); Berkey v. Judd, 14 Minn. 300 (394); Greenleaf v. Egan, 30 Minn. 316; Chadbourne v. Zilsdorf, 34 Minn. 43; Lace v. Fixen, 39 Minn. 46; Peterson v. Ruhnke, 46 Minn. 115. It was error to admit evidence of the price at which other owners were holding their property. 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 50; Lehmicke v. St. Paul, 19 Minn. 406 (464); Papooshek v. Winona, 44 Minn. 195;…
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
This is an action by the personal representatives of the testator on a promissory note for $2,500 made to him in his lifetime.
The answer admits that defendant executed the note, but alleges that it grew out of the following transaction: Defendant applied to the testator, Banning, in his lifetime for a loan of money. After various negotiations, Banning offered to loan defendant $3,000 and, as a condition of loaning the same, to sell and convey to him two certain lots owned by Banning in Duluth for the price of $3,000, to take a mortgage on those two lots to secure $2,500 of this price, and to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Saxe v. WomackSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
3Cited by12 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Midland Loan Finance Co. v. LorentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- Porter v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
- United States v. National City Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.