Citation Numbers: 34 Minn. 218
Judges: Vanderburgh
Filed Date: 11/4/1885
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
We think the answer in this case is so far supported by the affidavit in behalf of the defendants that the motion to strike it out as sham should have been denied. The evidence shows that the original payees, Osborne & Co., were interested in the collection of the notes sued on long after the time of the alleged in-dorsement thereof to plaintiff, and were conducting negotiations with defendants for their payment nearly up to the time of the commencement of the suit. It is true that it appears by affidavit in plaintiff’s behalf that the notes were indorsed to plaintiff before maturity, and one of the witnesses states that he called the attention of the defendant Brown to the fact that the notes were indorsed to plaintiff, and exhibited them to him. Brown, however, swears that the notes were not shown to him, and that he had never seen them since they were given; that he had never heard of plaintiff till October 18, 1884,,
. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.