Burchard v. Hull
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Scott county, Cadwell, J., denying her motion to amend the findings and for a new trial. An agent in whose hands an interest coupon note has been placed for collection, the owner retaining the principal note and securities given therefor, is not authorized to collect, or receive payment upon, the principal note.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Scott county, Cadwell, J., denying her motion to amend the findings and for a new trial. An agent in whose hands an interest coupon note has been placed for collection, the owner retaining the principal note and securities given therefor, is not authorized to collect, or receive payment upon, the principal note. Mechem, Ag. § 817; 1 Jones, Mort. § 964; Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130; Crane v. Gruenewald, 120 N. Y. 274; Cooley v. Willard, 34 111. 68; Doubleday v. Kress, 50 N. Y. 410; Richards v. Waller, 49 Neb. 639; Klindt v. Higgins, 95…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The facts in this case are practically undisputed. The plaintiff was a resident of Brattleboro, Vt., and a depositor and customer of the Vermont National Bank of that place. Having $1,200 which she desired to lend on western real-estate security, she authorized and requested the bank to make such an investment for her. The bank made the investment for her through A. F. & L. E. Kelley, of Minneapolis, who loaned the money to the defendant Hull, who executed therefor his note, dated January 30, 1890, payable to the order of the plaintiff, at Brattleboro, five years after date, with interest at…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Koivisto v. Bankers & Merchants Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Hockemeyer v. PoolerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Corey v. HunterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Martinson v. KershnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Nerlund v. SchiavoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.