Jagger v. National German-American Bank
| Decision Date | 01 June 1893 |
| Citation | 53 Minn. 386 |
| Parties | JOHN JAGGER <I>vs.</I> NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
On October 1, 1889, the plaintiff, John Jagger, left with defendant for collection, a note for $700 and interest, made by George S. Acker and indorsed by W. D. Cornish and W. M. Bushnell, due May 10, 1890. When it fell due it was not paid. It was not protested or notice of nonpayment given the indorsers. Acker was insolvent, had no property not exempt from sale on execution. This action is to recover damages for failure to protest and give notice. Defendant claims that when plaintiff left the note for collection, he directed that it should not be protested or notice given in case of nonpayment. Plaintiff had a verdict for $852.49.
John B. & E. P. Sanborn, for appellant.
C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for respondent.
This was an action to recover damages for the alleged failure of the defendant to take the necessary steps to fix the liability of the indorsers on a promissory note which plaintiff deposited with it for collection. The allegation of the complaint is that plaintiff delivered the note to the bank for collection, "notifying it to take all necessary steps, in case of nonpayment of the note at maturity, to hold the indorsers upon the same by due notice of nonpayment."
Defendant insists that, having alleged express instructions to the bank, plaintiff was bound to prove it, and could not rest on the undertaking of the bank implied from the mere fact of receiving the paper for collection. There is nothing in this. The complaint alleged nothing more than would have been implied in the absence of any express instructions.
The allegation referred to neither changed the issues nor the burden of proof. The position of counsel is, in effect, that if a party alleges more than is necessary he is bound to prove it.
2. Defendant's collection clerk testified that when plaintiff delivered the note for collection he notified him not to protest it, and in corroboration of this he was allowed to introduce in evidence the collection book, in which he made an entry at the time that the note was not to be protested. It can hardly be necessary to say that it would not have been competent, for any purpose, to prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McWethy v. Norby
... ... Johnson, 127 Minn. 291, ... 149 N.W. 466; Snelling State Bank of St. Paul v ... Clasen, 132 Minn. 404, 157 N.W. 643. Plaintiff and Mr ... contrary. Jagger v. National G. A. Bank, 53 Minn ... 386, 55 N.W. 545. When fraud in the ... ...
-
McWethy v. Norby
...not protest the note to hold the indorser, as it was under obligation to do unless instructed to the contrary. Jagger v. Nat. German-American Bank, 53 Minn. 386, 55 N. W. 545. When fraud in the procurement of the note was asserted, he brought suit on it, without ever suggesting to the indor......
-
Bovay v. Fuller
...that they had made no demand upon Bovay for payment. Judge Mitchell of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in Jagger v. National German-American Bank, 53 Minn. 386, 55 N. W. 545, 546, clearly states the necessities of notice as follows: "Mere knowledge of the dishonor of paper is not notice. No......
-
Young v. Avery Co.
...Nelson was negligent on this occasion defendant is liable, although it may have been his first negligent act. Jagger v. National German-American Bank, 53 Minn. 386, 55 N. W. 545;Fonda v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 438, 446, 74 N. W. 166,70 Am. St. Rep. 341. Evidence had been received t......