Merchants' Exch. Bank v. Luckow

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtGILFILLAN
Citation37 Minn. 542,35 N.W. 434
PartiesMERCHANTS' EXCH. BANK v LUCKOW AND OTHERS.
Decision Date13 December 1887

37 Minn. 542
35 N.W. 434

MERCHANTS' EXCH. BANK
v
LUCKOW AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 13, 1887.


[35 N.W. 434]


(Syllabus by the Court.)

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313,15 N. W. Rep. 255, to the effect that it is competent to prove that a written instrument, not under seal, but delivered, was to become operative only on the happening of some contingent future event, as upon its being signed by some other person, followed, and applied to a negotiable promissory note.1

Cummings v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 246, (Gil. 228,) as to when the onus is on the plaintiff suing on negotiable paper to prove that he is a bona fide holder, followed.


Appeal from district court, Winona county; START, Judge.

Tawney & Randall, for Merchants' Exch.
Bank, appellant.

Lloyd Barber, for Luckow and others, respondents.


GILFILLAN, C. J.

The facts out of which this action arose, as found by the court below, (and the evidence fully justified the findings,) are that the defendant Luckow signed the note sued upon, payable to Jacob Willaner & Co.; and the other defendants, except Willaner & Co., agreed to guaranty its payment, provided one Matthew Leinekugel and Mrs. Herman Luckow should also join in the guaranty; and under that agreement such other defendants wrote their names on the back of the note, and it was then left with the agent of the payees, Willaner & Co., to procure the signatures of Leinekugel and Mrs. Luckow, with the understanding that when those signatures should be procured, and not before, the guaranty or indorsements of such other defendants should become operative and of force. The signatures of such other persons was never procured. The payees named in it indorsed it to plaintiff, but there was no evidence as to when it was indorsed, nor as to whether or not plaintiff was a purchaser in good faith, without notice, and for value; for which reason the court found that the plaintiff was not such a purchaser.

It was held in Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313,15 N. W. Rep. 255, and Skaaras v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48,16 N. W. Rep. 456, that, in case of an instrument not under seal, it is competent to show by parol that, notwithstanding its delivery, it was intended by the parties that it should become operative as a contract only upon the happening of a future contingent event, such as that it should first be executed by some other person. It is claimed that the rule ought not to apply to negotiable paper, but we can see no reason why, as between the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • McKnight v. Parsons
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 19, 1907
    ...of the instrument, and constitutes a good defense to an action thereon by one who is not a bona fide holder. Merchants' Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434. The general rule is ordinarily stated as follows: “Where negotiable paper has been lost, or stolen, or obtained by duress, or p......
  • Hurt v. Ford
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1897
    ...(1863) 7 R. I. 375; Michels v. Olmstead (1882) 14 Fed. 219; Westman v. Krumweide (1883) 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255; Bank v. Luckow (1887) 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434; Bank v. Bornman (1888) 124 Ill. 200, 16 N. E. 210. The ruling in Burke v. Dulaney is sustained by the following standard text......
  • Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, No. 19630[53].
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 28, 1916
    ...constituted a fraud. In effect it was a conditional delivery. In this respect it was much like Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434, where a note was delivered but was not to become operative until signed by another; and there it was held that putting it in circula......
  • S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Fountain, No. 18913[147].
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1915
    ...contingent event, or the performance of a condition. Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255;Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434;Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995;Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100, 101 N. W. 1057;Chute Co. v. Latta, 123 Minn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • McKnight v. Parsons
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 19, 1907
    ...of the instrument, and constitutes a good defense to an action thereon by one who is not a bona fide holder. Merchants' Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434. The general rule is ordinarily stated as follows: “Where negotiable paper has been lost, or stolen, or obtained by duress, or p......
  • Hurt v. Ford
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1897
    ...(1863) 7 R. I. 375; Michels v. Olmstead (1882) 14 Fed. 219; Westman v. Krumweide (1883) 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255; Bank v. Luckow (1887) 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434; Bank v. Bornman (1888) 124 Ill. 200, 16 N. E. 210. The ruling in Burke v. Dulaney is sustained by the following standard text......
  • Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, No. 19630[53].
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 28, 1916
    ...constituted a fraud. In effect it was a conditional delivery. In this respect it was much like Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434, where a note was delivered but was not to become operative until signed by another; and there it was held that putting it in circula......
  • S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Fountain, No. 18913[147].
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1915
    ...contingent event, or the performance of a condition. Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255;Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434;Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995;Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100, 101 N. W. 1057;Chute Co. v. Latta, 123 Minn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT