Atwater v. Smith
| Decision Date | 04 August 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,167 - (228) |
| Citation | 76 N.W. 253,73 Minn. 507 |
| Parties | JOHN B. ATWATER v. EDWARD SMITH |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, McGee, J., denying his motion for a new trial after an order for judgment in favor of plaintiff for $11,165.44. Affirmed.
Promissory Note -- No Want of Consideration.
Held on the conceded facts, in an action brought by the receiver of an insolvent national bank, that there was no want of consideration for the execution and delivery of the promissory note on which the action was based.
Harrison & Noyes, for appellant.
E. C Garrigues and J. B. Atwater, for respondent.
Action by the receiver of an insolvent national bank upon a negotiable promissory note made by defendant, and payable to the bank. Defense, want of consideration.
A mere statement of the facts, over which there was no controversy, should prove sufficient to dispose of defendant's appeal:
For some time prior to October 10, 1894, and until the bank suspended payment, one Kittelson was its president, and defendant was one of its board of directors. Just before the day mentioned, the bank had been compelled to take its stock shares, of the par value of $10,000, in payment of a note held against one of its stockholders. On that day, at the request of Kittelson, and because, under the banking act, the bank was not permitted to hold its own shares, defendant executed and delivered his own note payable to the bank, for the then supposed value of the stock, -- a sum slightly in excess of its par value; the understanding being with Kittelson that as soon as possible another person should be found who would purchase the shares. This arrangement was not disclosed to any other officer of the bank, and, at a meeting of the board of directors held October 16, -- the defendant being present and participating, -- the note was reported to and accepted by the board as if it had been regularly discounted. One year later, defendant's note, given in renewal, was reported to and accepted by the board of directors in the same manner; defendant again being present, and participating in the proceedings. There were several renewals of the last-mentioned note, and all of the time defendant's paper was carried as an asset of the bank. A stock certificate for these shares was issued to Kittelson and defendant, and on November 16,...
To continue reading
Request your trial