Barker v. Walbridge
Supreme Court of Minnesota
An appeal is taken in this case, by defendant, from an order of the district court for Steele county, denying his motion for a new trial, after verdict for plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
An appeal is taken in this case, by defendant, from an order of the district court for Steele county, denying his motion for a new trial, after verdict for plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. The note should have been admitted in evidence, as the tender of a creditor’s own. over-due notéis equivalent to a tender in money. 2 Parsons on Contracts, 154, note “ a, ” ; Folly vs. Mason, 6 Mcl., 37. It is on this principle that our whole law of set-off is based. The plaintiff cannot, by changing his form of action, deprive the defendant of his right of set-off or counter…
1Opinion of the Court
*474 By the Court
Gtleillam, Oh. J.
This was an action brought under Chap. 84, Gen. Stat., before a justice of the peace, by a landlord against his tenant, to recover possession of rented premises, for non-payment of rent due, to the amount of $250.
The tenant alleges that when the rent came due he held plaintiff’s over due promissory note, on which was due $230, which, with $20 in money, he tendered in payment of the rent. The action went by appeal to the district court where plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant moved for a new trial, and from the order denying the motion, appeals to this court. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barhyte v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Walker v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Gates v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
3Cited by7 opinions
- Banning v. BradfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Williams v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Birdsall v. FischerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Matthews v. TorinusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Bennett v. Orange State Oil CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.