First National Bank v. Pierson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Olmsted county, in an action tried by Mitchell, J., without a jury, upon a promissory note made by defendant, and indorsed by one John Butler.
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
It is expressly found as a fact by the district court, before whom this cause was tried without a jury, “that the transaction under which the plaintiff claimed to have acquired the note in question was a purchase, and not a discount, or lending of money on the credit of itand we have no hesitation in saying that, upon the evidence, we fully concur with the court that such was undoubtedly the real nature of the transaction as intended by the parties thereto. As a conclusion of law from this finding the court held “that the plaintiff, a national bank corporation, had no authority to purchase or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
3Cited by9 opinions
- Salmon Falls Bank v. LeyserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Prescott National Bank v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Merchants' National Bank of St. Paul v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Oregonian Ry. Co. v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co.United States Circuit Court · 1885
- First National Bank v. SherburneAppellate Court of Illinois · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.