Sears v. Wempner

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Sears v. Wempner

7 N.W. 362, 27 Minn. 351, 1880 Minn. LEXIS 96

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 29, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 7 N.W. 362 (Sears v. Wempner) 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

Sears v. Wempner, 7 N.W. 362, 27 Minn. 351, 1880 Minn. LEXIS 96 (Mich. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The indorsement on each of the several notes held by the defendant Stahman against defendant Wempner, and secured by the mortgage, “Interest paid to November 20, 1876,” was in the nature of a receipt, and not of a contract, and might be contradicted or exp’ained by parol. This being so, the only question in the case is whether the evidence sustains the finding of fact by the court below.. The evidence furnished by the indorsements that the note then given for the interest was in payment of such interest, so as. to extinguish that part of the indebtedness evidenced by the notes, is strong. But the evidence of Stahman, that it was;not given or received in payment, is direct and explicit, and not contradicted except by the indorsements, thus producing a conflict in the evidence which was for' the court trying the question of fact to determine. We cannot disturb that determination.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The indorsement on each of the several notes held by the defendant Stahman against defendant Wempner, and secured by the mortgage, “Interest paid to November 20, 1876,” was in the nature of a receipt, and not of a contract, and might be contradicted or exp’ained by parol. This being so, the only question in the case is whether the evidence sustains the finding of fact by the court below.. The evidence furnished by the indorsements that the note then given for the interest was in payment of such interest, so as. to extinguish that part of the indebtedness evidenced by the notes, is strong. But the evidence of Stahman, that it was;not given or received in payment, is direct and explicit, and not contradicted except by the indorsements, thus producing a conflict in the evidence which was for' the court trying the question of fact to determine. We cannot disturb that determination.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.W. 362, 27 Minn. 351, 1880 Minn. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-v-wempner-minn-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack