Webb v. Michener
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Fillmore county, Farmer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a verdict of 99 cents for defendant on the counterclaim pleaded in her answer.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
This action is upon a promissory note alleged to have been made to Sherwood, for the firm of Canfield & Sherwood, and which passed to plaintiff under their general assignment. It is alleged to have been given on account of partnership goods sold to defendant. The answer denies that the note was given for any consideration whatever, and sets up a cause of action by way of counterclaim for goods and farm produce sold and delivered to the firm.
1. Under this denial the evidence offered by defendant to show that the note and accompanying mortgage were given for a fraudulent purpose, to shield…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Paine v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Cushing v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- City of Saint Paul v. LaidlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
- Martin v. PillsburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
3Cited by13 opinions
- Levine v. Lancashire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Wilson v. MolineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Branch v. DawsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- MANUFACTURERS'FINANCE CORPORATION v. Vye-Neill Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1933
- First Acceptance Corp. v. KennedyDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.