Collom v. Bixby
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, upon a promissory note, against defendant Bixby as indorser, and the other defendants as makers, alleging a transfer of the note •before maturity by indorsement by Bixby to one Thompson, a sale by Thompson to plaintiff before maturity, and due demand, protest and notice.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, upon a promissory note, against defendant Bixby as indorser, and the other defendants as makers, alleging a transfer of the note •before maturity by indorsement by Bixby to one Thompson, a sale by Thompson to plaintiff before maturity, and due demand, protest and notice. The defendant Bixby, answering separately, admitted the making and delivery of the note to himself, and alleged that it was secured by mortgage on real estate; that he and Thompson “entered into a contract in writing, whereby said Bixby agreed to assign…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
As the transaction under which the note in question was indorsed is first alleged in the answer, it was a contract in writing whereby said Bixby agreed to assign to said Thompson said mortgage and note, and said Thompson, in consideration thereof, agreed to convey to said Bixby certain real estate. So far as this agreement is thus alleged, no mode of assigning the note and mortgage, and no particular form or character of conveyance for the real estate, is indicated. If, upon that simple agreement, the parties aft-erwards came together, and, in performance of their previous agreement, the one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schurmeier v. St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865
3Cited by3 opinions
- Johnson v. SackrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Laybourn v. ZinnsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Bayne v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903