Freick v. Hinkly
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Rock county to cancel certain so-called promissory notes described in tbe complaint, and to restrain defendant from any further prosecution of any action on such notes in tbe supreme court of New Jersey or elsewhere, until tbe final determination of tbis action. Tbe plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why a restraining order should not be made.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Rock county to cancel certain so-called promissory notes described in tbe complaint, and to restrain defendant from any further prosecution of any action on such notes in tbe supreme court of New Jersey or elsewhere, until tbe final determination of tbis action. Tbe plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why a restraining order should not be made. At tbe hearing on tbe return of tbe order before Nelson, J., tbe court ordered that, upon filing a bond to be approved by tbe court, tbe defendant and all persons acting under his authority should be enjoined from…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
According to the complaint, one Kubach, in September, 1908, by a fraudulent trick, induced plaintiff to write his name upon four pieces of paper which now appear as promissory notes. Tbe complaint is drawn to bring the case within the provisions of section 2747, R. L. 1905, and sets forth facts which, if true, show that by virtue of that section of the code plaintiff has a complete defense against the notes, even in the hands of a bona fide purchaser. It. is not claimed that defendant, the present owner of the notes, at the time he obtained them, had any knowledge of the fraud by…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Cole v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Royal League v. KavanaghIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
- Bank of Bellows Falls v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Hawkins v. IrelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Spreckels v. Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Illinois Life Insurance v. PrentissIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- State ex rel. Bossung v. District Court of Hennepin CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- American Express Co. v. FoxTennessee Supreme Court · 1916
- Wabash Railway Co. v. PetersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Union Pacific Railroad v. RuleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.