Fuller v. Roller

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Fuller v. Roller

47 N.W. 651, 45 Minn. 152, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 533

DecidedDecember 30, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 47 N.W. 651 (Fuller v. Roller) 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

Fuller v. Roller, 47 N.W. 651, 45 Minn. 152, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 533 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.¹

This action is for the recovery of a balance claimed fo be unpaid, of the sum of $500, which the defendants had by their written note or contract promised to pay to the plaintiffs. The defence of payment interposed by the defendants was found to be true by the referee who tried the cause. At the trial, the defendants presented evidence to the effect that a part of the payment pleaded consisted of a certain sum paid on another note for $1,800 made by the ■defendant Eoller, such payment being in excess of what was necessary to satisfy the latter note, and such excess being applied by agreement on the former obligation of the defendants. The.question thus became material as to the amount really unpaid on the $1,800 note when such payment was made/ The plaintiffs offered in evidence a judgment.-roll in an action wherein John Eoller was plaintiff, and Morris E. Fuller, John A. Johnson, and another were defendants. The rejection of this evidence is the error assigned on this appeal. That action was prosecuted to enjoin a foreclosure of a mortgage, which had been given to secure the $1,800 note; for an accounting and determination as to the amount due; to have the mortgaged premises sold in a particular order; and for other purposes. The judgment embraced in the judgment-roll did not involve a determination as to the amount due on the mortgage, and hence was not receivable in evidence to establish that fact. The judgment-roll, the whole of which was offered in evidence, embraced matter clearly not ■competent or admissible as evidence in this case, such as the affidavits of persons, not parties to the action, as to the amount unpaid on the mortgage. These reasons are sufficient, without considering others, to justify the referee in excluding the evidence.

Order affirmed.

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

Dickinson, J.¹

This action is for the recovery of a balance claimed fo be unpaid, of the sum of $500, which the defendants had by their written note or contract promised to pay to the plaintiffs. The defence of payment interposed by the defendants was found to be true by the referee who tried the cause. At the trial, the defendants presented evidence to the effect that a part of the payment pleaded consisted of a certain sum paid on another note for $1,800 made by the ■defendant Eoller, such payment being in excess of what was necessary to satisfy the latter note, and such excess being applied by agreement on the former obligation of the defendants. The.question thus became material as to the amount really unpaid on the $1,800 note when such payment was made/ The plaintiffs offered in evidence a judgment.-roll in an action wherein John Eoller was plaintiff, and Morris E. Fuller, John A. Johnson, and another were defendants. The rejection of this evidence is the error assigned on this appeal. That action was prosecuted to enjoin a foreclosure of a mortgage, which had been given to secure the $1,800 note; for an accounting and determination as to the amount due; to have the mortgaged premises sold in a particular order; and for other purposes. The judgment embraced in the judgment-roll did not involve a determination as to the amount due on the mortgage, and hence was not receivable in evidence to establish that fact. The judgment-roll, the whole of which was offered in evidence, embraced matter clearly not ■competent or admissible as evidence in this case, such as the affidavits of persons, not parties to the action, as to the amount unpaid on the mortgage. These reasons are sufficient, without considering others, to justify the referee in excluding the evidence.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.W. 651, 45 Minn. 152, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-roller-minn-1890.