TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wyatt v. Jackson

Grant Wyatt v. William L. Jackson

Wyatt v. Jackson, 56 N.W. 578 (Minn. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 20, 1893
Docket
No. 8137
Judges
Gilnillan
Citations
56 N.W. 57855 Minn. 871893 Minn. LEXIS 147
Headnotes
A good consideration. A certain transaction held to afford a sufficient consideration for a promissory note. (Opinion published 56 N. W. Rep. 578.)
Summary
Appeal by defendant, William L. Jackson, from an order of tbe Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Roger S. Powell, J., made July 27, 1892, refusing his motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Grant Wyatt, sold defendant on March 15, 1892, twenty shares of stock in the Shaw Iron Company for $400, and took his note for the amount due thirty days thereafter with interest. The stock was left with Wyatt and he gave Jackson a receipt stating that he held the stock as collateral security for the payment of the note. When the note fell due it was not paid and Wyatt sold the stock April 22, 1892, on the market and realized therefor $197, which he indorsed on the note, and brought this action to recover the balance. The Court made findings and ordered judgment for plaintiff for $211. Defendant moved for a new trial, claiming that the decision was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. His motion was denied and he appeals. His only contention here is, that as the stock was never in fact delivered to him there was no consideration for the note.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gilnillan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gilnillan, C. J.

It is a matter of no importance in this case what the character of the transaction in respect to the stock was,— that it was an executory contract by plaintiff to transfer the stock to defendant, or a transfer by plaintiff to defendant, and a pledging or mortgaging by the latter to the former, — for, whatever its character, defendant acquired by it rights in respect to the stock which, upon performance of the contract on his part, he could enforce against plaintiff; and the vesting in him of such rights-was a sufficient consideration for the note he executed for the stock.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11925: 11930: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Veigel v. Johnson204 N.W. 36 (Minn. 1925)
  2. Little v. Dyer233 N.W. 7 (Minn. 1930)
  3. Genevey v. Edwards56 N.W. 578 (Minn. 1893)

Most recent

  1. Little v. Dyer233 N.W. 7 (Minn. 1930)
  2. Veigel v. Johnson204 N.W. 36 (Minn. 1925)
  3. Genevey v. Edwards56 N.W. 578 (Minn. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list