Peterson v. Russell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Marshall county, Ires, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Defendant, by signing his name on the back of the note for the purpose of guarantying its payment, thereby authorized plaintiffs io' write over it in full the guaranty, or whatever other contract was entered into; and this, when written, was a sufficient note or memorandum to take the case out of the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Marshall county, Ires, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Defendant, by signing his name on the back of the note for the purpose of guarantying its payment, thereby authorized plaintiffs io' write over it in full the guaranty, or whatever other contract was entered into; and this, when written, was a sufficient note or memorandum to take the case out of the statute of frauds. Moor v. Folsom, 14 Minn. 260 (340); McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 114 (139); Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 272 (369); Tiedeman, Com. Paper, § 270; Beckwith v.…
1Opinion of the Court
START, O. J.
Action to charge the defendant as guarantor of the payment of a negotiable promissory note.
Upon the trial the plaintiffs offered evidence, and then rested,, tending to establish the following state of facts: That on May 4,. 1892, Thomas Connors made and delivered to the plaintiffs his note whereby he promised to pay to them or order on November 1, 1892, $145. After the maturity of the note, and on March 31, 1893, the defendant agreed with the payees of tlm note, the plaintiffs, in consideration of their extending the time of its payment to December 15, 1893, to guaranty the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Good v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Rey v. SimpsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- Coulter v. . RichmondNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Ulen v. KittredgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Beckwith v. AngellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Security National Bank of Minneapolis v. PulverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Bennett v. SennSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
- Bank of Montreal v. BeecherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- American Multigraph Sales Co. v. GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Browns Valley State Bank v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.