45 Minn. 290 | Minn. | 1891
The complaint states two causes of action, the first a promissory note executed by the “New York Pie Company.” to the plaintiff, and the second a bank check drawn by the same
But even if the findings could be held sufficient, the evidence would not support them. It may be that the evidence discloses enough communicated to Thompson to work an estoppel in his favor, in which case plaintiff, as his assignee, could claim the benefit of it so far as the check is concerned. But this would not tend to establish any estoppel as to the other cause of action — on the note, — and we fail to find any evidence that any of defendant’s statements were ever communicated to plaintiff, unless it be the very equivocal testimony of Thompson that on one occasion he told plaintiff that the New York Pie Company was sound; that “R. G. Dun had reported about it.” There is evidence from which the court might perhaps have found that on one occasion the defendant stated to plaintiff, personally,
Order reversed.
Vanderburgh, J., took no part In this case.