G. Sommers & Co. v. Tintah Co-Operative Mercantile Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, (1
Defendant mercantile company executed a promissory note to plaintiff for a past due indebtedness; and, as part of the same transaction and before delivery, the individual defendants signed their names in blank upon the back of it. Plaintiff sued all the defendants as makers of the note. The individual defendants, among other defenses, asserted that they were indorsers of the note, not makers, and had never been notified of its nonpayment. The mercantile *108company, having been adjudged a bankrupt in bankruptcy proceedings, the action went to trial against the individual defendants…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Haddock, Blanchard Co. v. . HaddockNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- First National Bank v. BickelCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Baumeister v. KuntzSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- Toole v. CraftsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Colley v. Summers Parrott Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1916
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Vernon Center State Bank v. MangelsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Jeppesen v. Rexburg State BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1936
- Allen v. Central Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Waters v. Atlanta Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Lake Street State Bank v. HunterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.