Highland v. Dresser

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Highland v. Dresser

29 N.W. 55, 35 Minn. 345, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 142

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 1, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 N.W. 55 (Highland v. Dresser) 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

Highland v. Dresser, 29 N.W. 55, 35 Minn. 345, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 142 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

DicKinson, J.

This action is for the recovery of rent secured by at written lease of lands from plaintiff’s assignor to the defendant Dresser. Embodied in the lease itself was an agreement on the part of the defendant Funk, guaranteeing the performance of the terms of the lease on the part of the lessee, and the payment of the rent. The instrument embracing the guaranty was executed by all of the parties. Funk appeals from a judgment against both defendants, and in his behalf it is urged that the guaranty upon which he has been, held liable did not express any consideration for his undertaking, and that it was therefore invalid under the statute of frauds.

When, as in this case, the contract of guaranty is entered into contemporaneously with the principal contract, and is either incorporated in the latter, or so distinctly refers to it as to show that both agreements are parts of an entire transaction, no consideration need be expressed in the guaranty distinct from that expressed in the principal contract. In such case the consideration of the guaranty is apparent upon the face of the whole agreement, and that is enough. Wilson S. M. Co. v. Schnell, 20 Minn. 33, (40;) Bailey v. Freeman, 11 John. 221, (6 Am. Dec. 371;) Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. 315; Simons v. Steele, 36 N. H. 73; Nabb v. Koontz, 17 Md. 283; Culbertson v. Smith, 52 Md. 628, 634; 1 Reed, St. Frauds, 433, 436. This, principle controls this case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

DicKinson, J.

This action is for the recovery of rent secured by at written lease of lands from plaintiff’s assignor to the defendant Dresser. Embodied in the lease itself was an agreement on the part of the defendant Funk, guaranteeing the performance of the terms of the lease on the part of the lessee, and the payment of the rent. The instrument embracing the guaranty was executed by all of the parties. Funk appeals from a judgment against both defendants, and in his behalf it is urged that the guaranty upon which he has been, held liable did not express any consideration for his undertaking, and that it was therefore invalid under the statute of frauds.

When, as in this case, the contract of guaranty is entered into contemporaneously with the principal contract, and is either incorporated in the latter, or so distinctly refers to it as to show that both agreements are parts of an entire transaction, no consideration need be expressed in the guaranty distinct from that expressed in the principal contract. In such case the consideration of the guaranty is apparent upon the face of the whole agreement, and that is enough. Wilson S. M. Co. v. Schnell, 20 Minn. 33, (40;) Bailey v. Freeman, 11 John. 221, (6 Am. Dec. 371;) Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. 315; Simons v. Steele, 36 N. H. 73; Nabb v. Koontz, 17 Md. 283; Culbertson v. Smith, 52 Md. 628, 634; 1 Reed, St. Frauds, 433, 436. This, principle controls this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.W. 55, 35 Minn. 345, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/highland-v-dresser-minn-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack