Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bowler v. Braun

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 27, 1895No. Nos. 9432-(64)Published

Action in the district court for Scott county against Julius Braun, Mathilda Braun and John Niemann. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $602.50. From a judgment entered in pursuance of the verdict and also from an order, Cadwell, J., denying a motion for a new trial, defendant Niemann appealed.

1ConcurrenceCanty, J.

I concur in the foregoing opinion, for the reason that Fritz Niemann, having indorsed under John Niemann, appears on the face of the paper to be a second indorser, and must be held as such, if held at all (see People’s Bank v. Rockwood, 59 Minn. 420, 61 N. W. 457); that he may offer parol evidence to show want of consideration for his indorsement, but not for the purpose of bringing his agreement as surety within the statute of frauds. This point I have lately discussed in my concurring opinion in Peterson v. Russell, 62 Minn. 220, 64 N. W. 555.2

At page 225.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Peterson v. RussellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  2. People's Bank v. RockwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894