Legal Opinion
Fitzgerald v. State Bank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 21, 1896No. Nos. 9858-(73)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal by defendant from an order of tbe district court for St. Louis county, Moer, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Tbe facts surrounding tbe transaction herein involved were briefly stated by tbe official reporter when reporting tbe case of Miller v. State Bank of Dulutb, 57 Minn. 319, 59 N. W. 309, in wbicb case this court determined that tbe assignee of Simon Clark & Co. was tbe proper party to bring tbe action. Thereupon plaintiff, as such assignee, commenced this action, a jury trial was bad, *470and at the close of the testimony the court directed and the jury returned a verdict against defendant for the full amount of the deposit.
On the trial there was but little dispute over the facts, and especially…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- May v. HendersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Lutz v. WilliamsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
- Cincinnati Rubber Mfg. Co. v. John T. Towsley Mfg. Co., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1933