Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller

164 N.W. 989, 138 Minn. 481, 1917 Minn. LEXIS 967

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 16, 1917

DocketNo. 20,552

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 164 N.W. 989 (Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller) 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

Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller, 164 N.W. 989, 138 Minn. 481, 1917 Minn. LEXIS 967 (Mich. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Miller made and delivered to defendant Devney, in payment for the latter’s stock in plaintiff hank, his certain promissory note for the sum of $1,851, payable on demand after date. The note was negotiable and thereafter Devney for value and in the usual course of business indorsed and transferred it to plaintiff. The indorsement was in blank, thereby imposing an unconditional liability upon Devney. There was default in the payment and this action was brought to recover against both the maker and indorser. Defendant Devney, the indorser, interposed in defense an alleged verbal agreement that he was not to become personally liable on the indorsement and that at the time the note was so indorsed the president of plaintiff bank agreed to stamp over defendant’s signature the words “without recourse,” and thus give force and effect to the agreement. The agreement if made was never carried out by the president of the hank, and when the note was subsequently transferred to the bank it bore defendant’s blank indorsement only. At the conclusion of the trial the court ruled that the evidence tending to show the verbal agreement, which was all-objected to by plaintiff, was incompetent, because varying and contradicting the written contract as evidenced by the note and blank indorsement, and a verdict was directed for plaintiff.

In this the court was entirely right. The evidence of the verbal agreement referred to was clearly incompetent, -and was properly finally rejected by the court. Its only effect was to contradict the contract, as evidenced by the blank indorsement, and was no defense to the action. Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38 Minn. 352, 37 N. W. 586, and cases therein cited. Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255, and other like cases are not in point. They are clearly differentiated in Security Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Pulver, 131 Minn. 454, 155 N. W. 641.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Miller made and delivered to defendant Devney, in payment for the latter’s stock in plaintiff hank, his certain promissory note for the sum of $1,851, payable on demand after date. The note was negotiable and thereafter Devney for value and in the usual course of business indorsed and transferred it to plaintiff. The indorsement was in blank, thereby imposing an unconditional liability upon Devney. There was default in the payment and this action was brought to recover against both the maker and indorser. Defendant Devney, the indorser, interposed in defense an alleged verbal agreement that he was not to become personally liable on the indorsement and that at the time the note was so indorsed the president of plaintiff bank agreed to stamp over defendant’s signature the words “without recourse,” and thus give force and effect to the agreement. The agreement if made was never carried out by the president of the hank, and when the note was subsequently transferred to the bank it bore defendant’s blank indorsement only. At the conclusion of the trial the court ruled that the evidence tending to show the verbal agreement, which was all-objected to by plaintiff, was incompetent, because varying and contradicting the written contract as evidenced by the note and blank indorsement, and a verdict was directed for plaintiff.

In this the court was entirely right. The evidence of the verbal agreement referred to was clearly incompetent, -and was properly finally rejected by the court. Its only effect was to contradict the contract, as evidenced by the blank indorsement, and was no defense to the action. Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38 Minn. 352, 37 N. W. 586, and cases therein cited. Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255, and other like cases are not in point. They are clearly differentiated in Security Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Pulver, 131 Minn. 454, 155 N. W. 641.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.W. 989, 138 Minn. 481, 1917 Minn. LEXIS 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lake-harriet-state-bank-v-miller-minn-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack