McLean v. Dean

Supreme Court of Minnesota

McLean v. Dean

69 N.W. 140, 66 Minn. 369, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 446

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 7, 1896

DocketNos. 10,156-(136)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 140 (McLean v. Dean) 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

McLean v. Dean, 69 N.W. 140, 66 Minn. 369, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 446 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

MITCHELL, J.

The action was brought on two promissory notes executed by the defendant to one McGregor, and by the latter transferred to the plaintiff! by the following indorsement, to wit: “Pay to the order of John McLean.” The execution of the notes by defendant was admitted. The only evidence introduced or offered on the trial was the notes and indorsements. In response to a defense attempted to be set up in defendant’s answer, to the effect that the plaintiff, individually, was not the real party in interest, but held, the notes in some representative capacity, the plaintiff, in his reply,, admitted that the consideration which he paid for the notes belonged to the estate of certain minors, of whom he was guardian. On this state of the pleadings and evidence, the court correctly directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

The action being upon an express contract made by the guardian himself, it might be brought by him personally, although he may have made the contract for the benefit of his wards. This was the law,, independently of any statute. 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 111, and cases, cited. The same rule still obtains under the second clause of section 5158, G. S. 1894. Lake v. Albert, 37 Minn. 453, 35 N. W. 177; Cremer v. Wimmer, 40 Minn. 511, 42 N. W. 467; Murphin v. Scovell, 44 Minn. 530, 47 N. W. 256. See, also, Huntsman v. Fish, 36 Minn. 148, 30 N. W. 455.

Order affirmed.

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

MITCHELL, J.

The action was brought on two promissory notes executed by the defendant to one McGregor, and by the latter transferred to the plaintiff! by the following indorsement, to wit: “Pay to the order of John McLean.” The execution of the notes by defendant was admitted. The only evidence introduced or offered on the trial was the notes and indorsements. In response to a defense attempted to be set up in defendant’s answer, to the effect that the plaintiff, individually, was not the real party in interest, but held, the notes in some representative capacity, the plaintiff, in his reply,, admitted that the consideration which he paid for the notes belonged to the estate of certain minors, of whom he was guardian. On this state of the pleadings and evidence, the court correctly directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

The action being upon an express contract made by the guardian himself, it might be brought by him personally, although he may have made the contract for the benefit of his wards. This was the law,, independently of any statute. 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 111, and cases, cited. The same rule still obtains under the second clause of section 5158, G. S. 1894. Lake v. Albert, 37 Minn. 453, 35 N. W. 177; Cremer v. Wimmer, 40 Minn. 511, 42 N. W. 467; Murphin v. Scovell, 44 Minn. 530, 47 N. W. 256. See, also, Huntsman v. Fish, 36 Minn. 148, 30 N. W. 455.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.W. 140, 66 Minn. 369, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclean-v-dean-minn-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack