Barnard v. Gaslin
This text of 23 Minn. 192 (Barnard v. Gaslin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant Gaslin, who had endorsed a note payable to his order, and which was delivered to the plaintiff, is attempted to be held upon the note, notwithstanding failure to seiwe him with notice of non-payment, by oral testimony that the actual contract between the jiarties was other than that of endorser and endorsee. No fraud or mistake, such as to avoid the endorsement, or justify a reformation of the written contract, is alleged. The case comes within the rule laid down in Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 323 ; Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426; First National Bank v. National Marine Bank, 20 Minn. 63, which held that oral testimony was not competent to vary the contract of endorsement.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 Minn. 192, 1876 Minn. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnard-v-gaslin-minn-1876.