History
  • No items yet
midpage
Curtice v. Hokanson
38 Minn. 510
Minn.
1888
Check Treatment
Mitchell, J.

There is nothing in this ease to justify its ever having been brought into this court. There is not a particle of evidence tending to show either a want or a failure, partial or total, of consideration for the note which constitutes the plaintiffs’ first cause of action, and they were entitled, as a matter of law, to a verdict for its full amount. It ought to be settled by this time that parol evidence is inadmissible to show that an absolute agreement for the payment of money, such as a promissory note, was only to be performed in a certain event. Such evidence was very properly excluded by the court. As the verdict rendered by the jury was within the *511amount due on the note, it is entirely unnecessary to consider any questions regarding plaintiffs’ second cause of action.

Order affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Curtice v. Hokanson
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Jun 12, 1888
Citation: 38 Minn. 510
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.