Bank of Montreal v. Beecher
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court fox Hennepin county to recover $6,250 upon a promissory note. The answer alleged that the note was given without any consideration; that plaintiff, having an overdue claim against David Elliott, the husband of the- payee, caused her wrongfully to divert the note from the purpose for which it was given by giving it to plaintiff as collateral to secure the payment of that claim; that plaintiff never gave any consideration whatsoever either to…
Read the full summary
Action in the district court fox Hennepin county to recover $6,250 upon a promissory note. The answer alleged that the note was given without any consideration; that plaintiff, having an overdue claim against David Elliott, the husband of the- payee, caused her wrongfully to divert the note from the purpose for which it was given by giving it to plaintiff as collateral to secure the payment of that claim; that plaintiff never gave any consideration whatsoever either to defendant, to the payee or to her said husband, and that plaintiff is not a bona fide holder of the note for a valuable…
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
This is an action on a promissory note brought by an indorsee against the maker. Plaintiff acquired the note by indorsement before maturity. Defendant contends that the note was given without consideration and for the accommodation of the payee and offered proof to that effect. The court rejected this evidenee on the ground that it appeared that plaintiff was a bona fide holder for value without notice.
If plaintiff was not a purchaser for value, or if charged with notice of the facts claimed in defense, the proffered testimony should have been received.
The facts are these: Lillian K. Elliott…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Shelling State Bank v. ClasenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Rosemond v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Marling v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Turle v. SargentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
- McDonald Bros. v. KoltesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Goedhard v. FolstadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- First National Bank v. MalmquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.