Legal Opinion

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Waller

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 15, 1898No. Nos. 11,116-(112)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by defendant Larson from an order of the district court for Wright county, Tarbox, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the Court

START, O. J.

Action to recover from the defendants, as guarantors, the amount of two promissory notes. The defendant Larson answered, setting up two defenses: (1) That, without his knowledge or consent, the plaintiff for a valuable consideration extended the time for the payment of the notes; (2) payment of the notes before the commencement of the action.. On the trial the defendant was required by the court, on motion of the plaintiff, to elect which defense he would stand upon, on the ground that the two defenses were inconsistent. He elected to rely upon his first defense, and excepted to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gammon v. GanfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  2. Roblee v. SecrestSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rees v. StormsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  2. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. PetersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API