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

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 8, 1926

DocketNo. 25,487.

StatusPublished

This text of 210 N.W. 631 (Rundlett v. Bankers National Bank) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 N.W. 631, 168 Minn. 436, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rundlett-v-bankers-national-bank-minn-1926.