Elgin City Banking Co. v. Zelch
This text of 59 N.W. 544 (Elgin City Banking Co. v. Zelch) 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 executed his negotiable promissory note, payable to the order of one Daniel Dunham, who transferred it to the plaintiff, with the following indorsements: “Pay the Elgin City Banking Co. D. Dunham.” “Payment guarantied. D. Dun-ham.”
Whether these indorsements be construed as constituting a single contract, or two distinct and separate contracts, we are clear that they constitute an “indorsement,” in the commercial sense, and that the transferee is an “indorsee,” and entitled to protection as such, under the law merchant. The fact that Dunham enlarged his re[490]*490sponsibility beyond that of “indorser,” by guarantying payment, did not change or affect the character of his indorsement.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 59 N. W. 544.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 N.W. 544, 57 Minn. 487, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elgin-city-banking-co-v-zelch-minn-1894.