Tupp v. Pederson

81 N.W. 1103, 78 Minn. 524, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 435
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJanuary 19, 1900
DocketNos. 11,911—(175)
StatusPublished

This text of 81 N.W. 1103 (Tupp v. Pederson) 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
Tupp v. Pederson, 81 N.W. 1103, 78 Minn. 524, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 435 (Mich. 1900).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action is upon a promissory note. The defense was that defendant executed the note when only 20 years of age. It appears from the record that the action was commenced nearly six years after defendant became of age, and that defendant never did anything after becoming of age to disaffirm the contract. Appellant claims that the minor, within a reasonable time after becoming of age,' should have disaffirmed the contract, and, if he did not so dis-affirm by some specific act, he ratified by implication. The question here involved is controlled by the decision in the case of Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Snyder, supra, page 502.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 N.W. 1103, 78 Minn. 524, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tupp-v-pederson-minn-1900.