Good v. Singleton

40 N.W. 359, 39 Minn. 340, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 112
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 8, 1888·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the amount of their claim. The evidence fails to establish the defendant’s plea of payment. He claims to have paid the amount due by certified check. But the check it appears was returned to him, received, indorsed by him, and collected of the bank. This is the fair inference to be derived from the evidence, in which there is no conflict. He, and not plaintiffs, then, has had the benefit of the check. If he relied upon the circumstance of the delivery of the check as payment, he should have retained and produced it on the trial for the use of the plaintiffs. But the giving of a cheek for the amount of the debt by the debtor to his creditor is not absolute payment, un[341] less it is so agreed; and, where it is returned and used by the debtor, the debt remains.

Judgment reversed, and ease remanded, with directions to rendef judgment for the plaintiffs.

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

Good v. Singleton, 40 N.W. 359, 39 Minn. 340, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 112 (Mich. 1888).

40 N.W. 359 (Good v. Singleton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McFadden v. Follrath
130 N.W. 542 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)
First National Bank v. McConnell
114 N.W. 1129 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Dille v. White
109 N.W. 909 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Goodall v. Norton
92 N.W. 445 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1902)
Estey v. Birnbaum
68 N.W. 290 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)