¶1(concurring specially). The jury by its verdict in this case found that the plaintiff is.not a holder in due course of the note involved in this action; - The finding of the jury on this question is not assailed on this appeal, and hence is conclusive upon this court. ' The plaintiff, therefore, stands' in the same position as the original payee, Otto Thress. And in-my opinion the evidence on the part of the defendant justified the jury in finding that the defendant had been released and discharged from' all liability on the note. I therefore concur in an affirmance of-the judgment and order appealed from. ; .
41 ND 25
Gardner v. Lindeman
Decided November 18, 1918
North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1918-11-18
: Appeal from tbe District Court of Steele County, Honorable A. T. Cole, Judge. -' It is essential that there should be some valid consideration for tbe release of an obligation, such as a promissory note. Such should also be pleaded and proved. 7 Cyc., 137. '.Mere voluntary declarations made - by' a creditor that a debtor is discharged or released do not bind him. 34 Cyc. 1048; Hayes v. Massachusetts Mut. Ins.
Affirmed · Decided 1918-11-18