Curtice v. Hokanson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Curtice v. Hokanson

38 N.W. 694, 38 Minn. 510, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 451

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 12, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 N.W. 694 (Curtice v. Hokanson) 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.

Bluebook

Curtice v. Hokanson, 38 N.W. 694, 38 Minn. 510, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 451 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

There is nothing in this ease to justify its ever having been brought into this court. There is not a particle of evidence tending to show either a want or a failure, partial or total, of consideration for the note which constitutes the plaintiffs’ first cause of action, and they were entitled, as a matter of law, to a verdict for its full amount. It ought to be settled by this time that parol evidence is inadmissible to show that an absolute agreement for the payment of money, such as a promissory note, was only to be performed in a certain event. Such evidence was very properly excluded by the court. As the verdict rendered by the jury was within the [511]*511amount due on the note, it is entirely unnecessary to consider any questions regarding plaintiffs’ second cause of action.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mitchell, J.

There is nothing in this ease to justify its ever having been brought into this court. There is not a particle of evidence tending to show either a want or a failure, partial or total, of consideration for the note which constitutes the plaintiffs’ first cause of action, and they were entitled, as a matter of law, to a verdict for its full amount. It ought to be settled by this time that parol evidence is inadmissible to show that an absolute agreement for the payment of money, such as a promissory note, was only to be performed in a certain event. Such evidence was very properly excluded by the court. As the verdict rendered by the jury was within the [511]*511amount due on the note, it is entirely unnecessary to consider any questions regarding plaintiffs’ second cause of action.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.W. 694, 38 Minn. 510, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtice-v-hokanson-minn-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack