Haugan v. Sunwall
| Decision Date | 27 February 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 9146.,9146. |
| Parties | ANDREW C. HAUGAN v. GUST. F. SUNWALL.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note for an unpaid balance of $2,300. The defense set up that on June 24, 1893, plaintiff, in violation of the charter of the city of Minneapolis, had on deposit on open account $12,000 of the moneys in his hands as treasurer of the city of Minneapolis with the bank to which the note was payable; that the note in question, together with other notes, which constituted substantially all the assets of the bank, without authority of the directors or officers of said bank, were delivered as security for the money so deposited, and without consideration; that plaintiff had reasonable cause to and did believe said bank to be insolvent, and that defendant on said day had on deposit in said bank on open account a sum exceeding $800, no part of which has been paid. At the trial the evidence showed there was at the time of the transfer of the note a balance of about $800 on deposit, due the defendant upon an open account in the name of "W. B. Mohler, Agent"; that the transfer was made without direction or authority, save such as was possessed by the cashier in virtue of his office; that this and other notes, in all aggregating about $17,000, were transferred to the plaintiff early in the morning, about the hour of opening the bank, and in a great hurry. The court refused to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the whole amount asked. For the reason that, at the trial, evidence was excluded bearing on the questions whether the cashier had power to transfer the note, and whether the circumstances of the transfer were sufficient to excite the suspicion of the plaintiff, — evidence which should have gone to the jury, — the court, Smith, J., granted defendant's motion to set aside the verdict for plaintiff and for a new trial. From this order, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
A. Ueland, and Benton, Roberts & Brown, for appellant.
Marshall A. Spooner and Armstrong Taylor, for respondent.
This appeal is from an order granting defendant's motion for a new trial after a verdict had been rendered against him, by direction of the court, for the full amount claimed to be due on his negotiable promissory note. This note had been made payable to the order of the American Exchange Bank, and before maturity had been transferred, indorsed, and delivered by the cashier of the bank to the plaintiff as collateral security for money belonging to the city of Minneapolis, which the latter had previously deposited in the bank in his own name as treasurer. The indorsement and delivery were made June 24, 1893. Three days afterward the bank closed its doors, and on July 1 it made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors under the insolvency laws of the state. The principal question in the case is whether the court below erred when it excluded from the jury all consideration of certain evidence introduced by defendant which tended to show that at the time of the transfer of the note to plaintiff, and up to the time the bank suspended payment, the former had a sum of money exceeding $800 on deposit therein. The object of the evidence was to render available to defendant as a set-off pro tanto the amount of the deposit. It was undisputed that plaintiff had no knowledge of the fact when he took the note. As it stands conceded that the indorsement and delivery were before the maturity of the note, and the consideration therefor was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial