Good v. Singleton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Good v. Singleton

40 N.W. 359, 39 Minn. 340, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 112

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 8, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 N.W. 359 (Good v. Singleton) 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

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

Pincite

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]*341less 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

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]*341less 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.W. 359, 39 Minn. 340, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-v-singleton-minn-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack