Frank v. Irgens
This text of 6 N.W. 380 (Frank v. Irgens) 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 motion to dismiss the action, for [45]*45insufficiency 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 N.W. 380, 27 Minn. 43, 1880 Minn. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-irgens-minn-1880.