Talcott v. Marston
Supreme Court of Minnesota
AEPEAL EROM A JUDGMENT OE THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant: The Court below erred in allowing the Plaintiff any interest upon the second note specified in the complaint. First. — Interest could not be allowed, because there was no contract to pay interest.
Read the full summary
AEPEAL EROM A JUDGMENT OE THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant: The Court below erred in allowing the Plaintiff any interest upon the second note specified in the complaint. First. — Interest could not be allowed, because there was no contract to pay interest. Mason & Craig, Plaintiffs in Frror, vs. Calendar, Flint & Co., Defendants in Error, ease not reported, decided at December Term, Min. Sup. Court, 1858, see decision on file; Rev. Stat. of Minnesota, 1851, p. 155, Title, Interest. Second. — Damages…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Cowt.
— Atwater, J.
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District. Marston sued Talcott upon two promissory notes, which read as follows, viz :
“$110 00. St. Paul, June 10th, 1858.
“Six months after date I promise to pay Lewis P. Marston, or order, one hundred and ten dollars, with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum from date until due, and five per cent, per month after due until paid, value received.
(Signed.) “H. J. Talcott.”
“$48 00. St, Paul, Oct. 19th, 1858.
“Thirty days after date I promise to pay to Lewis P. Mars-ton, or order, forty-eight dollars, with…
2Cited by13 opinions
- James W. Partain v. The First National Bank of MontgomeryCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972
- Martin v. LennonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
- Jensen v. CrevierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Moreland v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Dudley v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.