Barnard v. Gaslin

Decided October 25, 1876

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1876-10-25

Action on a promissory note, made by the defendant W. A. Stanchfield to the order of defendant Gaslin, and by him endorsed. Answer, (by defendant Gaslin,) a general denial. At the trial in the court of common pleas of Hennepin county, before Young, J., (a jury being Avaivcd,) the following findings of fact Avere made by the court.

Relies on Levering & Morton v. Washington · Kern v. Von Phul, Waters & Co. · First National Bank of St. Paul v. National Marine Bank of St. Paul

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-10-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1912

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilfillan, C. J.

¶1The defendant Gaslin, who had endorsed a note payable to his order, and which was delivered to the plaintiff, is attempted to be held upon the note, notwithstanding failure to seiwe him with notice of non-payment, by oral testimony that the actual contract between the jiarties was other than that of endorser and endorsee. No fraud or mistake, such as to avoid the endorsement, or justify a reformation of the written contract, is alleged. The case comes within the rule laid down in Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 323 ; Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426; First National Bank v. National Marine Bank, 20 Minn. 63, which held that oral testimony was not competent to vary the contract of endorsement.

¶2Order affirmed.