Mast v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 08 June 1883 |
| Parties | MAST AND OTHERS v MATTHEWS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from judgment of the municipal court, city of Stillwater.
F. V. Comfort, for appellant.
James Matthews, for respondent.
This is an action upon an instrument similar in general character to that considered in Third National Bank v. Armstrong, 25 Minn. 530. See, also, Jones v. Radatz, 27 Minn. 240; [S. C. 6 N. W. REP. 800;]Stevens v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 172; [S. C. 9 N. W. REP. 677.] From the reasoning of the court in the first of these cases it appears that it is not a promissory note, because the sum which it promises to pay is not payable absolutely and at all events. It is made payable to S. L. Sheldon or order, by whom it purports to have been assigned to the plaintiff, by writing indorsed upon it. The assignment is denied in the answer. No evidence having been offered to show that the signature of the indorsed writing was that of Sheldon, the court below, holding that plaintiffs, who claim as assignees of Sheldon, had failed to show title to the instrument, dismissed the action. The burden of proving the signature of the assignment as a part of their case was on the plaintiffs, unless they are excused by some provision of statute.
They contend that they are excused by section 89, c. 73, Gen. St. 1878, which reads: “In actions brought on promissory notes or bills of exchange by the indorsee, the possession of the note or bill is prima facie evidence that the same was indorsed by the person by whom it purports to be indorsed, and every written instrument purporting to have been signed or executed by any person shall be proof that it was so signed, until the person by whom it purports to have been signed or executed shall deny the signature or execution of the same by his oath or affidavit; but this section shall not extend to instruments purporting to have been signed or executed by any person who shall have died previous to the requirement of such proof.”
The first provision of this section has no application to this case, because the instrument in suit is neither a promissory note nor bill of exchange. Literally read, the second provision of the section applies to every instrument offered in evidence, so that the production upon a trial of a note or bill, whether it be in suit or not, would be prima facie evidence of the genuineness of its signatures and indorsements. If this be its effect, then the first provision would appear to be superfluous-a result not to be arrived at unless inevitable. Again,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lundgren v. Union Indemnity Co.
...the apparent subscriber, applies only to writings which are themselves the basis of an action, counterclaim or defense. Mast & Co. v. Matthews, 30 Minn. 441, 16 N. W. 155; Fitzgerald v. English, 73 Minn. 266, 76 N. W. 27. Another preliminary observation is that, their signers having chosen ......
-
Citizens' State Bank of McIntosh v. Webster
...sufficient to overcome the proof which, under this statute, results from the presentation of the note in evidence. Mast & Co. v. Matthews, 30 Minn. 441, 16 N. W. 155; Cowing v. Peterson, 36 Minn. 130, 30 N. W. 461; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Doucette, 61 Minn. 40, 63 N. W. 95; McGint......
- Coles v. Shepard
-
Solway State Bank v. School Dist. No. 26
...not being on the indorsements, they were not self-proving under the statute. Section 9887, G. S. 1923, as construed in Mast & Co. v. Matthews, 30 Minn. 441, 16 N. W. 155. But their initial validity is unquestioned, and the transfer to the bank for value and by indorsement established by ext......