Legal Opinion

Eifel v. Veigel

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 10, 1926No. 25,387PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, C.

The defendant bank was closed in August, 1922, and its affairs are being wound up by the superintendent of banks. The question presented is whether plaintiff is simply a general creditor of the bank or is entitled to a preference right of payment.

The court found as a fact that plaintiff was the owner and holder of a promissory note for the sum of $1,700 executed by one Harold Myhre and payable to the Argyle Machine & Iron Works or order, which note had been sold, transferred and delivered to plaintiff by the payee in December, 1920; and that plaintiff “deposited the said note for…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. McLeod v. EvansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Messenger v. Carroll Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
  3. White v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  4. Tyson v. Western National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
  5. Darragh Co. v. GoodmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Milne v. Capital Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. First State Bank of Bristow v. O'BannonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  3. Shull v. BeasleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  4. Eastman v. Farmers State Bank of OliviaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  5. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Insurance v. Bank of DawsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API