Legal Opinion

Baird v. Unterseher

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1929PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNuessle, J.

Tbe plaintiff is tbe receiver of closed banks. He brought tbis action as receiver of tbe Mercer County State Bank to recover on a note executed by tbe defendants. Tbe defendant, Unterseber, defaulted. Tbe defendant, Scblender, answered, setting up tbe release and discharge of bis liability upon tbe note. Tbe case was tried to a jury. Tbe defendant bad a verdict. Tbe plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding tbe verdict or in tbe alternative for a new trial. Tbe court denied tbe motion for judgment notwithstanding but granted tbe motion for new trial. From tbe order entered accordingly tbe…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Aylmer v. AdamsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Martin v. ParkinsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Doyle v. DoyleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Pengilly v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Braithwaite v. AikenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Robbins v. RobbinsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Blum v. Standard Oil Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Olson v. ThompsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Peterson v. BoberNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Crossen v. RognlieNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API