Frank v. Irgens

6 N.W. 380, 27 Minn. 43, 1880 Minn. LEXIS 12
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 22, 1880·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The motion to dismiss the action, for [45] insufficiency of the complaint, was not made until the instrument described as the basis of the cause of action had been introduced in evidence, without objection. This, if the contract itself be valid on its face, cured the defect, if there was any, alleged against the complaint, that it did not sufficiently state a consideration for the promise sued on.

It is immaterial whether the instrument is or is not a promissory note. If it does not bear that character, it is still good as an ordinary contract. It contains a promise to pay, and admits “value received” as the consideration for the promise. It makes out, prima facie, a binding promise, upon a valid consideration; and its introduction on the trial entitled plaintiff to recover, unless a defence to it was shown.

Order affirmed.

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

Frank v. Irgens, 6 N.W. 380, 27 Minn. 43, 1880 Minn. LEXIS 12 (Mich. 1880).

6 N.W. 380 (Frank v. Irgens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ESTATE OF FALLON v. Fallon
30 So. 3d 1281 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2010)
Daniel v. Snowdoun Ass'n
513 So. 2d 946 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1987)
Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Utne
207 F. Supp. 521 (D. Minnesota, 1962)
First National Bank v. Olson
74 N.W.2d 123 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Finegan v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
14 N.E.2d 172 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Cooperative Dairymen's League v. Hansen
73 P.2d 627 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Liberty State Bank v. Metropolitan Church Ass'n
191 N.W. 414 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1923)
Parish v. Craig
40 App. D.C. 138 (D.C. Circuit, 1913)
Steinbach v. Brant
82 N.W. 651 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Elmquist v. Markoe
40 N.W. 825 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
Lipsmeier v. Vehslage
29 F. 175 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1886)