Ward v. Johnson

53 N.W. 766, 51 Minn. 480, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 110
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedDecember 2, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 53 N.W. 766 (Ward v. Johnson) 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
Ward v. Johnson, 53 N.W. 766, 51 Minn. 480, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 110 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

This action was brought against defendant, as maker of a negotiable promissory note, the plaintiff being a bona fide indorsee before maturity for a valuable consideration.

The defense was that defendant’s signature was obtained by fraud[482]*482•ulent representations as to the nature and terms of the contract, the attempt being to bring the case within the provisions of Laws 1883, ch. 114.

A jury trial was waived, and the court found that defendant’s signature was obtained by false representations, but that he was guilty of negligence in making and delivering the note.

The only question in the case is whether this finding was justified by the evidence, for according to the provisions of the statute, as well as according to the doctrine of all the cases in the absence of any statute, negligence by the maker in affixing his signature to a note or bill, in ignorance of its character, will deprive him of this defense as against an innocent indorsee for value before maturity. The evidence in this case was ample to justify, if not require, the finding that was made. He signed the note voluntarily, without informing himself of its contents, relying wholly upon the statements of the party opposed to him in the contract as to its nature and contents. He did not have even the stereotyped excuse that he could not read the instrument. He knew he was signing a promissory note of some kind, and yet affixed his name to it without availing himself of the means of information immediately within his power. It is difficult to conceive of a plainer case of negligence than this.

Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 786.)

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

Related

Albachten v. Bradley
3 N.W.2d 783 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Osven
290 N.W. 230 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1940)
Berghuis v. Burges
285 N.W. 464 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Olson v. Myrland
264 N.W. 129 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
Hartnagel v. Alexander
235 N.W. 521 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)
Big Diamond Milling Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
171 N.W. 799 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
First National Bank v. Schirmer
159 N.W. 800 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
Green v. Wilkie
36 L.R.A. 434 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)
Yellow Medicine County Bank v. Tagley
59 N.W. 486 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)
Russell & Co. v. Davis
51 Minn. 482 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 N.W. 766, 51 Minn. 480, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-johnson-minn-1892.