143 Minn. 440 | Minn. | 1919
Action on a promissory note. There was a verdict for the -plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
The court charged the jury that the defendant, to maintain his defense, must prove two things: “First, that he was at that time insane; and second, that the bank knew that or had knowledge of such facts that it should have known.” And it further charged that if the facts recited in the instruction quoted were proved the plaintiff could not recover.
The instruction was correct. The insanity of one party to a contract makes it only voidable, and it cannot be avoided where the other party acted in good faith, and was without notice or knowledge of the insan
The general verdict for the plaintiff includes a finding that it was without knowledge, and it is amply sustained by the evidence. The note being given for money loaned, the only way to put the parties in statu quo was for the defendant to pay the note. The plaintiff should therefore recover.
There was no error in the trial.
Order affirmed.