Rosemond v. Graham
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | DICKINSON |
| Citation | 56 N.W. 38,54 Minn. 323 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1893 |
| Parties | ROSEMOND v. GRAHAM. |
54 Minn. 323
56 N.W. 38
ROSEMOND
v.
GRAHAM.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
July 26, 1893.
[56 N.W. 38]
1. The indorsee of a promissory note may maintain an action thereon against the maker although others are beneficially interested with the plaintiff therein.
2. An indorsee of negotiable paper, taken before maturity as collateral security for an antecedent debt, in good faith, and without notice of defenses, such as fraud, which might have been available as between the original parties, holds the same free from such defenses.
3. Evidence held sufficient to show that the note in suit was thus taken in good faith, and without notice of the fraud alleged in defense.
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Egan, Judge.
Action on a promissory note by Fred L. Rosemond against John Graham. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, for appellant.
Lusk, Bunn & Hadley, for respondent.
DICKINSON, J.
The defendant executed to one Maxfield his negotiable promissory note. The case before us shows that Maxfield was indebted to the plaintiff and two other persons, William A. and Charles M. Campbell. The debt of Maxfield being due, he indorsed the defendant's note in blank, and before its maturity delivered it to the plaintiff, who wrote over Maxfield's blank indorsement in the usual form a direction that payment be made to himself, the plaintiff. As such indorsee, the plaintiff prosecutes this action on the note against the maker. At the trial, upon the evidence presented by both parties, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The correctness of that ruling is in question on this appeal.
While it appears that the indorsement to the plaintiff was made on account of the whole indebtedness to the plaintiff and the Campbells, and that they all had a beneficial interest in the paper, it also appears that as between themselves it had been committed to the plaintiff to act for their common interest, and according to his own discretion, in obtaining payment or security from Maxfield. It does not prejudice the defendant, and constitutes no defense, that the Campbells are not parties to the action. Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 305,47 N. W. Rep. 970, and cases cited. The defendant sought to show in defense, and now claims to have shown, that Maxfield induced him to execute the note by fraudulent representations. The ruling of the court now under
[56 N.W. 39]
review was that this defense was not available as against the plaintiff. That is the important question in the case. Its solution depends upon the question whether the plaintiff so acquired and holds the note that he enjoys the legal advantage and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Motion Picture Mach. Operators' Union of Minneapolis, No. 22200.
...those of the federal courts. Palm-Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Bjornstad, 136 Minn. 38, 161 N. W. 215, L. R. A. 1917C, 1012;Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38,40 Am. St. Rep. 336. The anti-trust statute of this state, for all intents and purposes, is substantially the same as the Sherma......
-
Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, No. 19630[53].
...an antecedent debt, is a purchaser for value, and has such title as a purchaser for a consideration paid at the time. Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38,40 Am. St. Rep. 336;German-American State Bank v. Lyons, 127 Minn. 390, 149 N. W. 658. 2. The presence of the words ‘as per con......
-
Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, Nos. 19,630 - (53).
...an antecedent debt, is a purchaser for value and has such title as a purchaser for a consideration paid at the time. Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38, 40 Am. St. 336; German American State Bank v. Lyons, 127 Minn. 390, 149 N. W. 2. The presence of the words "as per contract" on......
-
Bank of Montreal v. Beecher, No. 19662[56].
...a promissory note as collateral security for an antecedent debt owing to him by the indorser is a purchaser for value. Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38,40 Am. St. Rep. 336;Haugan v. Sunwall, 60 Minn. 367, 62 N. W. 398;First National Bank of Morrison v. Busch, 102 Minn. 365, 113......
-
Campbell v. Motion Picture Mach. Operators' Union of Minneapolis, No. 22200.
...those of the federal courts. Palm-Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Bjornstad, 136 Minn. 38, 161 N. W. 215, L. R. A. 1917C, 1012;Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38,40 Am. St. Rep. 336. The anti-trust statute of this state, for all intents and purposes, is substantially the same as the Sherma......
-
Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, No. 19630[53].
...an antecedent debt, is a purchaser for value, and has such title as a purchaser for a consideration paid at the time. Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38,40 Am. St. Rep. 336;German-American State Bank v. Lyons, 127 Minn. 390, 149 N. W. 658. 2. The presence of the words ‘as per con......
-
Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, Nos. 19,630 - (53).
...an antecedent debt, is a purchaser for value and has such title as a purchaser for a consideration paid at the time. Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38, 40 Am. St. 336; German American State Bank v. Lyons, 127 Minn. 390, 149 N. W. 2. The presence of the words "as per contract" on......
-
Bank of Montreal v. Beecher, No. 19662[56].
...a promissory note as collateral security for an antecedent debt owing to him by the indorser is a purchaser for value. Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323, 56 N. W. 38,40 Am. St. Rep. 336;Haugan v. Sunwall, 60 Minn. 367, 62 N. W. 398;First National Bank of Morrison v. Busch, 102 Minn. 365, 113......