Legal Opinion

Bank of Dassel v. March

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 27, 1931No. 28,113PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion

Both parties move for a reargument.

Counsel for the plaintiff says we were in error in saying that the "transfer was entered on the books of the bank." We were. The answer alleged that the defendant sold and transferred the stock to the president and managing officer of the bank and directed him to enter the transfer on the books and supposed that he did so. This allegation is sufficient to permit evidence relieving the defendant of liability except such as he would have if the transfer had been entered. Hunt v. Seeger, 91 Minn. 264, 98 N.W. 91; Keyes v. Myhre, 143 Minn. 193,173 N.W. 422; 45…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hunt v. SeegerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  2. Keyes v. MyhreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bank of Dassel v. MarchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API