Adams v. Adams
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Dakota county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. 1. The defendant is barred by the former judgment from setting up want of consideration as a defence to the note in suit. The plaintiff in that action alleged that the note sued on was given for value, and the defendant was summoned, and had his day in court, to dispute that and the other allegations of the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Dakota county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. 1. The defendant is barred by the former judgment from setting up want of consideration as a defence to the note in suit. The plaintiff in that action alleged that the note sued on was given for value, and the defendant was summoned, and had his day in court, to dispute that and the other allegations of the complaint. By failing to appear, he admitted their truth, and thereupon the court adjudged that the note was given for value. A judgment by default is equivalent to a…
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
The demand in suit is one of several negotiable promissory notes, which were given by the defendant to the plaintiff, at the same time, and upon one and the same entire consideration. They all originated in the same transaction, having been given in pursuance of an alleged illegal agreement, entered into between the parties while they were husband and wife, for the purpose of procuring a divorce between themselves, in an action then commenced by the plaintiff against said- defendant. The defence interposed and relied on in this action is this alleged illegality in the consideration of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Davis v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Thompson v. MyrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Stoutenburg v. LybrandOhio Supreme Court · 1862
- Viser v. BertrandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Seitz v. MichelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Warner v. WarnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Wallace v. WallaceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Swank v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Gallemore v. GallemoreSupreme Court of Florida · 1927
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.