Slipp v. Hartley
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant Guilford G. Hartley, from an order of the District Court of Crow Wing county, Holland, J., made February 9» 1892, denying his motion for a new trial. Fred.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant Guilford G. Hartley, from an order of the District Court of Crow Wing county, Holland, J., made February 9» 1892, denying his motion for a new trial. Fred. J. Slipp, the plaintiff, brought this action February 16, 1891, against Guilford G. Hartley, Benjamin F. Hartley, James Dewar, Louisa M. Witt, W. H. Leland, and D. E. Slipp upon a promissory note made by Witt,' Hartley & Co., dated April 22, 1885, for $2,066, and interest at ten per cent, a year, payable to the order of D. E. Slipp three months after its date, without grace. It was indorsed Hartley Bros. & Dewar, W. H.…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
This was an action upon a promissory note signed by the firm of Witt, Hartley & Co., .payable to the order of D. E. Slipp, by whom it was indorsed to plaintiff, his brother, after maturity. Before delivery to the payee it was indorsed by Mr. Leland, and by the firm of Hartley Bros. & Dewar. The appellant, G. G. Hart-ley, was the only answering defendant, and at the time of the making and delivery of this paper he was a member of both firms before mentioned. There was no contention over his claim upon the trial ■that the note sued upon was only given as a substitute and to take up two past-due…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Boor v. LowreyIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Cook v. WeirmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Thorn v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Heffron v. HanafordMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Van Dyke v. SeelyeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Caswell v. Maplewood GarageSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
- Mansfield v. HowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926