Legal Opinion
Veigel v. Converse
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 1, 1926No. Nos. 25,547, 25,548PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
Two actions by the commissioner of banks, as receiver of the First State Bank of Walnut Grove, to recover from defendants on their joint and several obligations acquired by the bank before its insolvency. One of the cases (25,548) is on a written guaranty of several notes owned by the bank. They were recited by the guaranty to be of “questionable value” and are now said to be worthless. Without going into details, we assume that the obligation in question, although in terms of guaranty, may now be considered a primary liability of defendants. The other action (25,547) is upon a promissory…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. WooldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- St. Paul & M. Trust Co. v. LeckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Wendlandt v. SohreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Richardson v. MerrittSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Northern Trust Co. v. RogersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Liquidation of Farmers State Bank of North BranchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- City of Rice Lake v. Citizens' State BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. MelbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Hallam v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Turner v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928