Rundlett v. Bankers National Bank

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Rundlett v. Bankers National Bank

210 N.W. 631, 168 Minn. 436, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1593

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided October 8, 1926·No. No. 25,487.·Published

Opinion

Dibell, J.

The demurrer of the plaintiff to the answer of the defendant was overruled and he' appeals.

The facts are substantially those alleged in the case of the same plaintiff against the Midland National Bank & Trust Company, supra, page 434, except that Henderson received payment of the cashier’s check issued by the Midland bank from the defendant, which later received payment from the Midland bank through the clearings. As in the case cited there is no merit in the demurrer.

Order affirmed.

Holt, J., took no part.

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

Dibell, J.

The demurrer of the plaintiff to the answer of the defendant was overruled and he' appeals.

The facts are substantially those alleged in the case of the same plaintiff against the Midland National Bank & Trust Company, supra, page 434, except that Henderson received payment of the cashier’s check issued by the Midland bank from the defendant, which later received payment from the Midland bank through the clearings. As in the case cited there is no merit in the demurrer.

Order affirmed.

Holt, J., took no part.

Rundlett v. Bankers National Bank, 210 N.W. 631, 168 Minn. 436, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1593 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

210 N.W. 631 (Rundlett v. Bankers National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.