Barnard v. Gaslin

23 Minn. 192, 1876 Minn. LEXIS 116
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided October 25, 1876·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

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

Barnard v. Gaslin, 23 Minn. 192, 1876 Minn. LEXIS 116 (Mich. 1876).

23 Minn. 192 (Barnard v. Gaslin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burwell v. Gaylord
138 N.W. 685 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)
People's Bank v. Rockwood
61 N.W. 457 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)
Holmes v. First National Bank
56 N.W. 1011 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1893)
Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co.
48 N.W. 326 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1891)
Cummings v. Kent
44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 92 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1886)
Dye v. Scott
35 Ohio St. (N.S.) 194 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1878)
Coon v. Pruden
25 Minn. 105 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1878)