Legal Opinion · Dissent

Amland v. Grose

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 18, 1940No. 32,391PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

To me the plaintiff's case rests on too tenuous a theory to be entitled to credence. It is plaintiff's theory that Amland "determined to create the first of these forgeries on one of plaintiff's notes to the bank, and obtained possession of a blank note * * *; that he forged her name on it, and then immediately forged her signature on the deed by tracing it from the forged signature on the note. That by some sleight of hand manipulation he succeeded in passing over the forged note to the teller at the bank," and this theory is based upon the partisan testimony of expert witnesses, supported…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Amland v. GroseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API