Bennett v. Healey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EBOM THE DISTRICT COURT OE WINONA COUNTY. This is an action for money bad and received. The complaint charges, that on tbe 3d day of October, 1856, tbe Defendants were partners in business under tbe firm name of Taylor, Bennett & Co.; that on said day one Obas. Moore was tbe owner in fee simple of 160 acres of land in tbe county of Winona.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EBOM THE DISTRICT COURT OE WINONA COUNTY. This is an action for money bad and received. The complaint charges, that on tbe 3d day of October, 1856, tbe Defendants were partners in business under tbe firm name of Taylor, Bennett & Co.; that on said day one Obas. Moore was tbe owner in fee simple of 160 acres of land in tbe county of Winona. That on said day said Moore executed and.delivered to Defendant, Thomas E. Bennett, as a member of said firm, a mortgage upon said premises to secure the payment of two promissory notes of even date therewith, — one for $345 and due in six months,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oouri.
ElANDeau, J.
— The note to which the mortgage in this case is security, is disembarrassed of all questions of penalty, compound interest and similar issues that have characterized previous cases. It was simply a note for $390, dated on 3d day of October, 1856, and payable in one year from date. There can be no difference of opinion about the amount due on such a note, except through disagreement as to payments that may have been made, which is a mere question of fact. The mortgagee claimed in his notice of sale $381 25, a sum, according to the complaint which must be *248taken as…
2Cited by5 opinions
- First National Bank v. SargeantNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
- Johnson v. FordTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
- Butterfield v. FarnhamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
- Fagan v. People's Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Misener v. GouldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866