White v. Johns
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This was an action upon a bond brought in the district court for McLeod county. The defendant alleged in his' answer that the words “whereas, there is an unsettled account between L. C. White & Co. and said Theodore W. Keithly, as their agent,” and the words “be found due on settling such account, or which shall, ” interlined and inserted in said bond, were so interlined and inserted “after the same was signed by this defendant, and without the knowledge of consent of this…
Read the full summary
This was an action upon a bond brought in the district court for McLeod county. The defendant alleged in his' answer that the words “whereas, there is an unsettled account between L. C. White & Co. and said Theodore W. Keithly, as their agent,” and the words “be found due on settling such account, or which shall, ” interlined and inserted in said bond, were so interlined and inserted “after the same was signed by this defendant, and without the knowledge of consent of this defendant in any manner whatever. ” The cause was referred to William Kilgore, Esq., to try and determine the issues and…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
As respects the defendant Johns, (the only party upon whom summons was served,) this is an action upon a bond executed by him and one.Keithly, and written upon the back of a certain contract executed by Keithly and the plaintiffs.
The condition of the bond as it is set out in the complant, and as it appeared in the instrument itself when it was put in evidence upon the trial, is as follows, viz.: “The condition of this obligation is such that, whereas, there is an unsettled account between said L. C. White & Co. and said Theodore W. Keithly, as their agent, if the above bounden Theodore W.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Coles v. YorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881