Miller v. State Bank

59 N.W. 309, 57 Minn. 319, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 293
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 24, 1894·No. No. 8803·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

Plaintiff was agent for Simon Clark & Co., and, as such, deposited money of theirs with defendant to the credit of himself, — “A. J. Miller, Agent.” Afterwards Simon Clark & Co. made an assignment in insolvency.

Whether plaintiff could or could not, while his agency continued, maintain -an action in his oavu name on the deposit, he certainly could not after his relation to the deposit ceased by the revocation of his agency with respect to it

[323]*323The assignment of his principals, Simon Clark & Co., worked such revocation.

Order reversed.

Book, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 309.)

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

Miller v. State Bank, 59 N.W. 309, 57 Minn. 319, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 293 (Mich. 1894).

59 N.W. 309 (Miller v. State Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fitzgerald v. State Bank
67 N.W. 361 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)
Hawkins v. Manston
59 N.W. 309 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)