Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Hendrickson
| Decision Date | 08 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25,000 |
| Citation | 206 N.W. 723,165 Minn. 446 |
| Parties | MIDLAND NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS v. H. H. HENDRICKSON AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
After the former appeal, reported in 159 Minn. 355, 200 N.W. 17 the action was tried before Charles Bunn, Esq., referee, who ordered judgment in favor of defendants Knudson and Wolverton State Bank for $3,140.52, to be paid out of the fund deposited with Henry Rines, state treasurer, and that plaintiff was entitled to the balance of the fund. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the district court, Olin B Lewis, J., entered pursuant to the report and supplemental report of the referee. Affirmed.
Assignment of money construed.
1. An assignment of money arising out of a highway contract, "now due, or to become due, * * * for service * * * rendered or to be * * * performed * * * up to and including November 30, 1922," construed as assigning all moneys earned up to that date, and not merely the money becoming due up to that date, and hence includes withheld percentages earned but not due.
Finding sustained that assignment was to secure existing debts and future advances.
2. Evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the assignment was to secure the assignee and also a bank for existing indebtedness and also future advances made by either of them.
Parol evidence admissible to show for whose benefit assignment was made.
3. Such assignment, being given as collateral security, may be shown by parol to be for the benefit of persons other than the assignee alone.
Assignments, 5 C.J. pp. 946 n. 66; 947 n. 76; 1019 n. 39.
Evidence, 22 C.J. pp. 1157 n. 53; 1166 n. 97; 1235 n. 28.
Ueland & Ueland, for appellant.
Lewis E. Jones, for respondents.
This is a continuation of the controversy over the money mentioned in this case in 159 Minn. 355, 200 N.W. 17. On October 26, 1922, Hendrickson Brothers were indebted to the Wolverton State Bank on two notes of H. H. Hendrickson for $1,000 each. About that date T. E. Knudson, the president of said bank, loaned to Hendrickson Brothers the sum of $5,000, evidenced by two notes to his order for $3,000 and $2,000, respectively. At that time they made and delivered to Knudson an assignment reading in part:
"* * * we * * * in consideration of $5,000.00 to us in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby sell and assign all our interest in and to the wages or earnings now due, or to become due, to us for services heretofore rendered or to be hereafter done and performed for the Commissioner of Highways of the State of Minnesota under the two certain contracts * * * to T. E. Knudson * * * up to and including November 30, 1922 * * * and the said commissioner * * * is * * * authorized to pay * * * Knudson or his assigns the * * * money due us or to become due hereafter as above specified."
On March 31, 1923, Hendrickson Brothers made and gave to the plaintiff an assignment in due form of all sums of money then due and becoming due from one of said contracts, to-wit, State Project 6-27, to secure the payment of six notes of $2,000 each.
The amount of money in the hands of the depositary of the court is $5,547.53 which resulted from Contract 6-27. The practice of the highway department under the contracts was, as the work progressed, to issue estimates, and to pay on each estimate, on account of the contract price, 85 per cent of the estimate in the manner provided by section 22, chapter 323, p. 423, L. 1921. Of the money now on hand $3,140.52 is made up of withheld percentages earned before November 30, 1922, on Contract 6-27. The remaining $2,407.01 is money earned thereafter. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment awarding $3,140.52 to the First National Bank of Breckenridge, it being the assignee of defendant Knudson and the Wolverton State Bank.
Appellant argues that the clause "up to and including November 30, 1922, "must be construed as relating to the words "due or to become due" and not to the clause "services heretofore rendered or to be hereafter done and performed." It is also urged that the clause "become due hereafter as above specified" supports such claim. Such construction would exclude from the assignment the withheld percentages. But in our opinion the first clause terminating the assignment on November 30, 1922 relates to services...
To continue reading
Request your trial