First National Bank v. Burkhardt

Supreme Court of Minnesota

First National Bank v. Burkhardt

73 N.W. 858, 71 Minn. 185, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 536

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 14, 1898

DocketNos. 10,685-(105)

StatusPublished

This text of 73 N.W. 858 (First National Bank v. Burkhardt) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.W. 858, 71 Minn. 185, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-burkhardt-minn-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack