Legal Opinion

Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Huss

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

The evidence tends to show that the payees of the note offered the note to the bank for purchase. The acting cashier, Oliver Stenberg, said that the bank could not handle the note because it ran for two years and it could not accept any note running for more than one year-. The payees gave assurance that they would pay the note within a year, whereupon Stenberg wrote the word “one” over the word “two.” He testified that he did this not with any intention of altering tire note so as to enable the bank to *660enforce the same against the maker before two years from the date thereof, but to indicate…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matteson v. EllsworthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Battle v. . CoitNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
  3. State Savings Bank v. ShafferNebraska Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Morley-Murphy Co. v. Van VreedeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Federal Corp. v. RadtkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Will of DennettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. State Bank of Cornell v. Town of WashingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API