Volume 5 — Minnesota Reports

The indictment in' this case charged tbe Defendant “of tlie crime of verbally maliciously threatening to injure tbe person of another with intent thereby to -compel the person so threat* ened, to do an act against Ms will, committed as follows : The said Joseph Ullman at the city of Saint Paul in said county of Kamsey and State of Minnesota, on the 2d day of May, 1860, having seized one Meyer L. Solomon by the throat, and being engaged in injuring said Solomon by choking and…

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — The bills or notes are not set forth in the indictment, Where written instruments enter into the gist of the offence as in forgery, passing counterfeit money, selling lottery tickets, sending threatening' letters, libel, etc., they should be set out in words and figures. In such cases, however, it is not necessary to insert the vignettes, devices, letters or figures in the margin, as they make no part of the instrument, etc. Wh.

The points and authorities filed by Plaintiff in Error, are not pertinent to any of tbe questions decided by tbe Court, but relate to tbe power of tbe Court to modify and amend tbe judgment. Points and authorities of Defendant in Error: First. — Defendant in error respectfully claims, that this honorable Court has jurisdiction herein upon this writ of error, founded on any final judgment or decree made or rendered in this action in tbe Court below.

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — The order appealed from is appealable under Sudd. 3, Seo. 11, p. 621 Oomp. Stat. Under tbe order made by Judge Yanderburgb, tbe Defendant bad at the time of making tbe order appealed from, tbe right to answer and defend tbe action and bave tbe cause tried on its merits. His right was a definite, fixed, legal right, of which tbe order appealed from deprived him. It therefore “ involved tbe merits or some part thereof.” 4 How. Hr.

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — The Court below erred in refusing to permit the original articles of association to be read in evidence by the Plaintiff, without first proving the signatures of the Defend-' ants thereto appended. Comp. Stat., p. 685, Sec. 80.

Points and authorities of Appellant: • First. — The Court erred in instructing the jury — • “ That the sum insured being $2,500 and the value of the goods being estimated in the Policy at $5,000, the damages occasioned by removal of the goods (if any) must be borne in the following proportion under the fifteenth condition of the Policy, to wit: “ The Plaintiff must bear one-third of such damage, and the Defendant two-thirds.” 1.

Statement of Case: This is an issue of law raised by Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

The Appellants’ points and authorities do not relate to the motion to dismiss the^appeal. Points and authorities of Eespondent: Fi/rst. — The order is not appealable. 1. The motion was not for a new trial, and was not made for any of tbe reasons stated in tbe Statute, nor bas there ever, been a trial witbin tbe meaning of tbe act allowing appeals from orders granting a new trial.

Statement of case: Appeal from an order vacating and setting aside an attachment. At tbe last term of this Court, tbe appeal was dismissed, on tbe ground that tbe old Supreme Court bad decided tbe question. Tbe Appellant now moves for a re-argument. Points and authorities of Appellant: Tbe case on wbicb tbe Court relied is that of Humphrey vs. Hezlep, Isi Mmn. 239.

OTON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT ÓE RAMSEY COUNTY. Under tbe opinion of tbis Court in tbe case of Mason dh Oraig vs. James F. Heyward, 3 Mm. B. 182, a judgment was entered in favor of tbe Plaintiffs, for tbe amount found due by tbe referee. And also, it was adjudged that tbe Plaintiffs bave a lien upon tbe property described in tbe referee’s report, from, the 15th da/y of Jwne, 1858.

Points and authorities of Appellant: Fvrst. — The referee, who summarily disposed of this case, under the Constitution of .Minnesota, had no judicial power; and tbe judgment is therefore erroneous. Marberry vs. Madison, 1 Branch 61 to 70; Rv/nter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 330 side page; In re Booth,, 3 Wis. R. 65. Second. — The complaint contained facts which constituted a good cause of action. The judgment of dismissal is therefore erroneous.

Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error: Fvrst. — It fully appears from tbe allegations of tbe complaint, that tbe proyisious of tbe statute authorizing certificates like tbe one described in tbe complaint to be issued in certain cases, were not complied with in any respect. Hence tbe certificate was void, and tbe assessment of tbe same as a tax upon tbe land or lot must therefore be also void. See Pa-lio 14 cmd 19, (inclusive,) of ease: McOombvs. Bell, 2 Minn.

Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error. First.- — 'The relief demanded in this action is duplex, i. e. to discharge the lands described from the lien created by the statute and to cancel the certificate. Second. — The statute being a pai’t of the complaint it appears that the certificates are not invalid upon their face. Third.

The Plaintiff sued in tbe Court below, tbe Defendants above-named, and ¥m. B. Gere and Lorenzo Allis, in trespass for taking and carrying away certain goods. On tbe trial tbe Plaintiff discontinued as to William B. Gere. Tbe Plaintiff bad a verdict and judgment against tbe other Defendants, wbicb on motion was set aside by tbe Court below, as to tbe Defendant Lorenzo Allis, and tbe motion for that purpose denied as to these Defendants.

<p>The Revised Statutes of Minnesota Territory, p. 384 Sec. 41, <Cc. (Stats, of Minn. p. 536, Sec. 39,40 and 41,) providing that “ actions must he tried in the County in which the parties, or one of them, reside at the commencement of the action, * * ‘l! subject, however, to the power of the Court to change the place of trial on tho application of all the Defendants who answer’, * * when the County designated in the complaintis not the proper County,” should not be construed to be an absolute mandato upon the Court and parties, so as to put a case, of which the Court has acquired jurisdiction beyond tho control of the parties to proceed therein. It is of no consequence’ to a Defendant who has no defense, in what County it may be pending. After ho has answered and shows that the action is not brought in the proper County, tho answer does not oust the Court of its jurisdictiou, but only confers upon tho Court the power over the place of trial.</p> <p>Tho practice to procure an order for a change of the place of trial, for the reason that “ the County designated for that purpose in the complaint is not the proper County,” is by motion and application on tho part of the Defendants who have answered — the same as for any other cause specified in the statute.</p>

Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error: First. — Said action is predicated upon a mechanic’s lien, and is not an equitable proceeding to charge the separate property of Mrs. Carpenter,, and can only be supported under a valid agreement, upon which an action at law can be sustained.

<p>EEEOE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY.</p> <p>Same Points made and Authorities cited as in case of Oar-Penter a/nd Wife vs. Leonard, azitep. 155.</p>

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — The Court below erred in allowing a new trial on affidavits alone. The affidavits should have been accompanied with a case. I Wend. Rep. 331.

Points and authorities of Appellant. First. — In ejectment under the Code, the complaint in this action is sufficient and embraces every thing necessary to be established on tbe trial. Ensign vs. Sherman, 14 IIow. Pr. B. 439 ; Sanders vs. Leary, 16 How. P. It. 308 ; 'Walter vs. Lockwood, 23 Barb. Sup. Ct. It. 228, overrules Lawrence vs. Wright, 2 JDxier 673, contra ; How. Hew York Code 1059— GO.

Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in Error. First. — The complaint does state facts sufficient -to consti-; tute a cause of action. Money paid for the canses, and under .the circumstances stated in the complaint, may be recovered back by civil action. 8 Term. Sep. 516 ; 3 B. dé P., 181; 2 Starlcies Fo. 114 and 118 / 1 lerm Sep. 133 ; 2 Burr Sep>. 1010 ; 3 Starkies Fv. ■ 1614; 5 Fast S. 449/ 1 damp. Sep. 293; 2 Fsp. 0. 639 ; 1 Pawn Sep. 65; 2 Greenleaf Fv. See. 124; 2 Bl.

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — That the affirmative allegations in [the answer of the Defendant below, do not contain any new matter constituting a defence, but are merely denials in an affirmative form of the allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint, and need no reply. Benedict vs. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. R. 298, dec. Whitaker’s Pr. 265; 13 How. Pr. R. 14 ; 21 Barb.

Points and authorities of Appellant. Tbe agreement set up in tbe complaint is against tbe policy of tbe law, illegal and void, and tbe Judge erred in refusing to charge tbe jury. Fol. 10, dkc ; Section, 562, Story - on Contracts; Dwrcmtvs. Fitley, 7 Price JR. 577; 9 Barn a/nd Cress, 200, 202.

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — Tbe District Court erred in admitting tlie memorandum made by tbe Plaintiff in evidence, for any purpose whatever, and overruling tbe objections made by Defendant’s counsel. Tbe memorandum was not properly verified. It ■was not made from tbe actual knowledge of tbe witness.

This action was brought by tbe State of Minnesota, in the District Court of Rice County, to quiet the title to certain lands in that County, under Ghajp. 64,page 595 Stat. ofMvrm.

Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — The Court below erred iu denying tbe motion for continuance, and overruling tbe same. The affidavit is sufficient. Stat. Mirm.p. 558, Sec. 12. Second. — The Defendant was entitled to a judgment upon the pleadings, and the District Court erred in denying the motion for judgment. 1.

This action was brought to quiet the title to certain real estate in Ramsey county, under the statute relating to actions to determine conflicting claims to real estate. Stats, of Mm,., p. 595, chap. 64. The issues of fact were referred to Geo.

The following is a statement of tbe facts. That on tbe twenty-sixth day of February, 1868, tbe Defendant Kingsley recovered a judgment against tbe Plaintiff Newhallfor $34,71 damages and $1,35 costs, and on tbe fifth of March, 1858, another judgment for $89,63 damages and $1,50 costs, both before a Justice of tbe Peac'e of Washington ■ County.

This is an appeal from an order directing that a writ of possession issue in favor of the above named Respondent and against the Appellant, in an action commenced in the District Court for Goodhue County, on the 12th day of March, a. d. 1859, to foreclose a mortgage wherein the Respondent was Plaintiff, and the Appellant (who was interested in the mortgaged premises as a iona fide purchaser thereof,) was, with others, Defendants.

Points and Authorities of Defendant in Error: First. — School Districts are corporations capable of suing and being sued, and fully competent to transact all business appertaining to schools in tbeir corporate name. Corny). Stat., p. 360, seo. 6, sub. 8. This power is conferred on the inhabitants as a body corporate. The Trustees are fully authorized and empowered to contract with and employ all teachers for the District. Comp. Stat., p. 350, seo. 12, sub. 5.

Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in Error. First. — Under the mechanic’s lien law of 1835, the Plaintiff’s lien for work, labor, &c. was perfect upon the fulfillment by Mm of Ms contract with the Defendant Greeley, Such lien dating from the commencement of such work, &c. Session Raws of 1855, Chap. 16, Sections 9, 11, and 16 ; Mason & Craig vs. Heyward, decided in this Court, at the December term, 1860.

Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in Error. First. — The Defendant below was entitled to a determination of said action, and a final decision therein at the term of the District Court in which said action was tried; yet said action was not determined or a decision thereon filed until the twenty-second day of December, 1860, more than twenty days after said Court at said Term adjourned sime die. Statute See. 41, jp. 562.

Points and authorities of Appellants: I. Tbe answers of tbe several Defendants, Dunning and Stone respectively, show a good defence to the action, and it was therefore erroneous for tbe referee to give judgment upon tbe pleadings without any proof whatever. II. Tbe Defendant, Stone, was a mere accommodation maker, and entitled to tbe benefits of all tbe equities existing between Dunning and tbe payee of said notes. 1 Denio, 583; 15 John. 270; 10 lb. 231. III.

<p>Action upon promissory note executed by Dunning, and payable to order of }V..D. Tates,assignee of Earwell & Co. Answer, that previous to the making and delivery of the note, Earwell <fc Co. made an assignment to Tates, for the benefit of their creditors. That Plaintiff was a member of said firm when the assignment was made. That previous to making the same, Plaintiff and said firm pretended and falsely claimed that Defendant was indebted to said firm in a sum equal to or exceeding the principal of said note. That at the making of said note, said Tates, assignee, and said Plaintiff, still falsely and fraudulently claimed and pretended that Defendant was indebted to said firm, and to said Tates by virtue of said assignment, and that in accordance with such false and fraudulent representations, the Defendant executed said note to said assignee, as collateral security for the payment of said precedent debt. But that no such debt did in fact exist, that he was not indebted to said firm, and that there was no consideration for the note. The reply impliedly admitted that statements were made to the Defendant that he was indebted to the firm, and that such indebtedness constituted the consideration of the note, but denied that such statements were falso. Held, that the answer set forth a defence, and that the reply mado an issue of fact.</p>

Points and Authorities of Appellant. First. — A demurrer will not lie for a misjoinder of parties. Tbe defect of parties for which a demurrer is allowed under tbe code, is a deficiency of, and not too many parties, a non-joinder and not a misjoinder. Gregory vs. OaJcsmiih, 12 jHow. P. R. 17,134 ; Pmkney vs. Wallace, 1 Abbottfs P. R. 82, 44 ; Peaho&y vs. Wash. Ins. Co., 20 Ba/rb. R. 340 ; Lewis et al vs. Williams ei al, 3 Jfitm.

Points and authorities of Appellants: I. The order denying a new trial was erroneous, because the Court below erred in excluding any evidence on the part of the Defendant, and also in granting Plaintiff’s motion for judgment upon the pleadings. The answer disclosed a perfect defence to the action.

Points and Authorities of Plaintiffs in Error. Pirst. — Tbe mortgage to Thompson, bearing date June 8, 1858, was tbe first and oldest lien or incumbrance upon tbe premises. It has never been satisfied nor extinguished. It is therefore entitled to priority. Edwards on Bills and Prom. Notes, 550-552. 1 Hilliard on Mort., eh. 17, sees. 7, 10, 11, 11 1), 12; 8 B. Mon. 287; 14 Oonn. 334, 472; 16 Piole. 22; (24); 4 John. Oh. Rep. 65; 3 Barb.

Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — Where, under the Statutes of Minnesota, an action is brought by tbe endorsee of a promissory note against the makers and endorser, and one’ judgment entered against all the Defendants, payment of the amount of the judgment by tbe endorser to the endorsee (Plaintiff), and an assignment of the judgment by the Plaintiff to a stranger, does not extinguish tbe judgment, and is not a satisfaction of it as against the makers of the…

Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — The declarations of a person assuming to act as an agent, cannot be given in evidence to affect Ms alleged principal, until tbe fact of agency is first established, and this must be doneby matters aUundetbe acts and declarations of tbe pretended agent. Vide Oowen, Hill and Edwards’, notes vol. l,pp. 513-14-15, particularly note 144; Dunlap’s Haley on Agency, 309, 310; IT). 316, 317; Scott vs. Grane, 1 Gown. R. 255.

Points and Authorities of Appellant. First. — The affidavit upon which tbe garnishee summons issued should state the ground specifically upon which the garnishee is sought to he charged — whether as debtor or as. the possessor of property, money or effects. It is insufficient if it seeks to charge the garnishee in the alternative. Drake on, Attachments, sec. 108, page 108.

Points and Authorities of Plaintiffs in Error. I. — ¥e claim that tbe contract or indebtedness of Pease to tbe Railroad Company was never assigned to tbe Plaintiffs. This Pease contract was not like a negotiable instrument, and could not be transferred so as to vest any more rights in or under it than the company had at the time of such transter.

Points and authorities of Appellants: I. — Tho order of publication was granted by the Clerk of the Court, who was authorized by law to grant the same. La/ws of 1858, chap. 11, page 25. The granting of the order upon the affidavit was in the discretion of the Clerk, and cannot be vacated or set aside . by another officer of the same Court, after rights have been acquired under such order.

Points of Appellant: I. — 'Tbe pleadings in this action show ¡that the Plaintiff sought to recover the amount of four promissory notes of $300 each, with interest. That said notes were given in part payment of a large stock of merchandise.

Points and. authorities of Appellant: I. — The taking by the Sheriff was lawful, for under Secs. 103 and 104, page 571, of the Compiled Statutes, a Sheriff making a levy upon property of that class or species has the right to take possession of and keep the property certainly for a reasonable time, in order to make an inventory of the whole of the property, and to cause the same to be appraised, and the articles to be exempted selected by the j udgment debtor.

Points and Authorities of Appellant. First. — IVIoney obtained by oppression and by taking advantage of tbe distress of others, in violation of laws made for their protection, may be recovered back in an action for money liad and received, and a fortiori a party is entitled to relief in equity from such unconscionable payments or contracts. The maxim “ Potior est conditio defendentis” has no application.

Points and Authorities'of Appellant. First. — The complaint of the Plaintiff does not contain a statement of facts constituting a cause of action. In that no request is averred. See 1st Chitty’s Pleadings, (marginalpag-ing,) 330, and cases there cited. Second. — The Court erred in admitting testimony tending to show a breach of the contract, there being a total failure of proof of the contract set up. See 1st Chitty’s Pleadings, 312, c&c.; 1st Term Reports, 447.

Points and authorities of Appellant: T'i/rst. — The promissory note upon which this action was brought, at the time of the Plaintiff’s levy thereon^ as Sheriff, was in the possession of Patrick McCarthy, as security for the payment of a debt due to him from the payee of the note and was a pledge.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY.</p> <p>Eor Syllabus in this case see ante page 897.</p>

Points and Authorities of Appellant. Tbe Court, if it saw fit to recapitulate the facts set forth in tbe complaint and answer, erred in omitting to find tbat after tbe docketing of tbe Defendant’s judgment against Levi Nutting, tbe Sheriff duly executed to said Nutting a deed and conveyance of tbe premises described in tbe complaint. See folio 7.

<p>The right to appoint a receiver, and to vacate such appointment, is referable solely to the powers which the Courts exercise as Courts of Chancery. Courts of Law, as such, do not have or exercise such powors, unless specially conferred upon them, but they are inherent in Courts of Chancery.</p> <p>The right to appeal from an order vacating the appointment of a receiver, depends upon the 12th section of the act of March 5,1803, which preserved the right to appeal from any interlocutory decree or order in all actions which, before said act, were commenced, prosecuted and conducted in Chancery, or enforced by Chancery jurisdiction; and the appeal must be taken witbin fifteen days, as required by that act. Such an order could not be appealed from under the General Statute relating to appeals in civil actions, nor undor the amendment of 1800, providing for an appeal from an order granting or refusing a provisional remedy.</p>

Points and authorities of Appellant: I. There is a palpable want or absence of equity in the case made by tbe Plaintiff’s complaint.

APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COÜNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant. The error of the Court below consists in supposing that it is necessary for the the Defendant to contradict and vary tbe written contact set forth in the answer in order to establish the defence; the Court was probably led into this error from the fact that the answer set forth much more than was necessary to constitute a defence.

APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP G00DIIUE COÜNTY. Points and Authorities of Appellant.

EBROR TO THE DISTRICT C0URT OE GOODHUE COUNTY. Points and authorities of Defendant in Error : The Defendant in Error moves to dismiss the writ in this cause upon the following grounds : First. — That judgment below was rendered, and notice thereof given to the Plaintiff in Error on the 29th day of February, 1860, the writ of Error was not sued out until the 18th of April, 1861. Second. — A 'Writ of Error can only be taken within one year after the rendition of Judgment.

■ Points and Authorities of Appellant. First. — The merits of the case are with Bunday, Defendant in the original action, and Plaintiff in Error here.

Points and authorities of Appellant: There are two distinct propositions which arise in this case, and which may be thus stated: First. — Where A, being indebted to B upon promissory note, gives B a new note, payable on demand, upon no other consideration than the indebtedness of the old note, can A show in a suit by B on the new note, that it was given for more than the sum due on the old note, and thus limit the recovery to the amount due on the old note ?

appeal eroM the district Court oe rice county. Points and'authorities of Appellant. tirst. — As it does not appear affirmatively by tbe return of the Justice that any objection was made to the declaration, or to the admission of evidence relative to any of the items of the Plaintiff’s account under it — nor that an oral reply, denying all or a portion of Defendant’s counter claim, was not put in — nor that all the evidence is stated in the return; the proceedings of the…

Points and Authorities of Appellants. I. — Tbe Court below erred in holding that the defendants were personally liable upon tbe written contract above set forth.

' APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RICE COUNTY. Points and Authorities of Appellant. Hirst. — No person can be adjudged a garnishee by reason of any liability incurred as maker or otherwise upon any draft, bill of exchange, or promissory note. Revised Stats, of Mm. {Compiled) 661, seo. 15; Session Laws of 1860, 241, seo. 7; Hubba/rd vs. Williams, 1 Mm. 54; Carson vs. Allen, 2 Chcmd. (Wis.) 123; Mavis vs. Paulette, 3 Wis. 300-306; Rev. Stats.

Points and authorities of Appellant. First. — Tbe doctrine enunciated by tbis Court in Mason Crwig, et al., vs. Callender, Flint & Co., 2 Mirm., 350/ and Talcott vs. Ma/rston, 3 Minn., 339, that “ upon breach of a money contract as to tbe principal, interest ceases, and damages only are recoverable at tbe rate fixed by law,” is too well supported by both reason and authority to admit of dispute, if, indeed, our case required it.

Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error: I. — Tbe law of I860 respecting chattel mortgages was not in force at tbe time this mortgage was made. Rev. Stats., p. , seo. ; Constitution of Mmn., a/rt-. 16, seo. 2. Tbe provisions of tbe act apply only to mortgages made after it went into effect, vide section 2. II. — No specific acts or circumstances showing fraud are alleged or proven by tbe Defendants in error — fraud is found by the Court as a conclusion of law.

Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — The Court below erred in excluding the testimony contemplated by the question, “Who were engaged in cutting these logs in the winter of 1859-60 ?” The witness had testified in chief that the logs were cut in the winter of 1859-60, on the St. Croix river. This was a proper cross-examination to test the witness’ means of knowledge, and his recollection. You say the logs were cut in 1859-60. How do you know?

Points and Authorities of Appellant. This was an action brought by tbe Plaintiff against tbe Defendant in tbe District Court of Hennepin County, upon a renewed policy of insurance executed-by tbe Defendant to J. Green & Co., assignees of Moore and Powers, whereby the H. Defendant insured for said J. H. Green & Co., for one year from tbe- 3d day of November, 1858, a stock of goods in tbe sum of $5,000, subject to certain conditions and regulations attached to and made-a part…

Points and authorities of Respondent. The granting or refusal to grant the amendment oifered was a matter of discretion, and is not subject to review. Smith vs. Babeoelc, 3 Sumner, 410; 3 Oode Reporter, 85; Roth vs. Sloss, 6 Ba/rb. [308; 3 Sme. c& M. 409; Tanner vs. Hides, 4 II. 294, 353; Oomp. Stat.,p. 618, see. 127; Willards Equity, 63; I/yon vs. Richmond, 2 John. Oh. R. 51; Stows vs. Balcer, 6 John. Oh. R. 169; 9 Barb. 532; 10 Barb. 9, 16; 18 Wend. 417.

, Points and Authorities of Appellants, Whittacre and Star-buck. First. — 1st. The extension of the time for payment of the $3,000 note, by the agreement of February 13, 1856, did not discharge or affect the lien of the mortgage. It could be discharged only by payment or release. 1 Hilliard on Mort. 307 — -309, 315, 324, and oases cited: 3 Ba/rb. Oh. Hep. 293, Bcmk, (&o., vs. Finch; 31 Maine Rep. 296, Haddock vs. Bullfinch; 8 Pick. Pep. 522, Watkms vs. Hill; 14 Com.

<p>APPEAL EBOM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BICE COUNTT.</p>

<p>The Statute (Convp. Statp. 578, sec. 9,) providing for tho allowance of expem }s for printing papers in appeal, does not authorize such allowance when prepared in any other way.</p>

APPEAL ÉBOM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. The facts charged by the Plaintiff are substantially, that one R. L. Joice, residing near St. Anthony, Minnesota, on May 4, 1851, for value made and delivered to Samuel S. Eaton, of Nininger, Minnesota, tbe payee, Ms promissory note for $3,2o2.16, payable on or before May 4,1858, and that Eaton for value transferred the note by endorsement and de-p- ' y to the Plaintiff before maturity. ’ ¿at Defendants were bankers at St.…