First National Bank v. Burkhardt

73 N.W. 858, 71 Minn. 185, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 536
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 14, 1898·No. Nos. 10,685-(105)·Published

Opinion

COLLINS, J.

Defendant Burkhardt (appellant here) was the maker of the note sued upon, and Bickel and Witte joined in a guaranty of payment, written on its back. All were joined as defendants in the action upon the authority of Hammel v. Beardsley, 31 Minn. 314, 17 N. W. 858, although Burkhardt was not served with the summons until some time after separate and several judgments had been entered against the joint guarantors, first against Bickel and then against Witte. Of this fact Burkhardt cannot complain, for it was entirely proper to enter a several judgment against him. Bank v. Smith, 57 Minn. 374, 59 N. W. 311. And it could make no difference that such judgment was rendered after judgments against the guarantors had been entered, instead of before. Davison v. Harmon, 65 Minn. 402, 67 N. W. 1015, is not in point for obvious reasons.

Order affirmed.

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

First National Bank v. Burkhardt, 73 N.W. 858, 71 Minn. 185, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 536 (Mich. 1898).

73 N.W. 858 (First National Bank v. Burkhardt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hammel v. Beardsley
17 N.W. 858 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)
Bank of Commerce v. Smith
59 N.W. 311 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)
Davison v. Harmon
67 N.W. 1015 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)