Moore v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Wabasha county, Gould, J., refusing a new trial after a directed verdict for plaintiff. The burden of proof was on plaintiff, and there was an absolute lack of evidence as to the agency of Mrs. Holmes’s husband or as to her ratification of his assumed agency. Edgerton, Wickwire & Bice, for respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
This is an action brought by the receiver of the Merchants’ Bank of Lake City upon a promissory note. The complaint alleges that the defendant, Anna E. Holmes, by her husband and her agent duly authorized thereto, made her promissory note in writing dated June 1, 1893, and thereby promised to pay to the Merchants’ Bank of Lake City, on demand, $4,000, with interest from the date of said note, interest payable annually, and that only $163.33 as interest had been paid on said note. The answer specially denies that she ever made or signed the note. The verification to the answer was made by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tarbox v. GormanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. DoucetteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
3Cited by5 opinions
- National City Bank v. Zimmer Vacuum Renovator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- La Plant v. Pratt-Ford Greenhouse Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- State Bank v. Magraw, Kerfoot & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- McGinty v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- McGinty v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898