Thysell v. Holm
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $243.65 upon two promissory notes. The case was tried before Taylor, J., who granted plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Per curiam
Suit on two promissory notes executed by father and son. The father alone answered, alleging as a defense that he was a surety and that plaintiffs with knowledge of that fact, for a valuable consideration, extended the time of payment to the son without the consent of the father. The court directed a verdict for plaintiffs. The appeal is from the order denying a new trial.
After the maturity of the notes, the son was asked to pay a past-due book account which he owed plaintiffs. He testified that plaintiffs threatened to bring suit against the makers of the notes, unless he paid this book…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Abel v. AlexanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- First State Bank v. SchatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Ingels v. SutliffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
- Bunker v. TaylorSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Hughes v. Southern Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Farmers Union Oil Company v. FladelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Tremont v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Newgard v. FreelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936