Minnesota Supreme Court, 1876

Sullivan v. Murphy

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 2, 1876 · Gileillan

23 Minn. 6; 1876 Minn. LEXIS 67 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Atwater & Babcock, for appellants,, A. E. Merrick, for respondents.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1908, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Bell v. Mendenhall (Minn. 1898)
McManus v. Nichols-Chisholm Lumber Co. (Minn. 1908)
McNamara v. Eustis (Minn. 1891)
Maxfield v. Schwartz (Minn. 1890)
Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co. (Minn. 1881)
Stariha v. Greenwood (Minn. 1881)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gileillan, C. J.

Action to recover the amount of a promissory note given to plaintiffs by a corporation created under Gen. St. c. 34, title 2, called the Trades Manufacturing Company. It is alleged by the plaintiffs, and found .by the court below, that the corporation transferred all its property to defendants, upon their undertaking and promise to assume and pay all its debts. The case made does not purport to contain all the evidence, and, therefore, we cannot consider whether the findings of fact are sustained by the evidence.

*7The admissions of Ira T. Murphy, of the fact of the partnership between himself and the other defendant, though they would not of themselves be sufficient to prove the partnership as to the other defendant, were proper evidence of it against him.

The promise of defendants, made to the corporation, to assume and pay its debts, is an original undertaking, and not a collateral one, and, therefore, not within the statute of frauds. Goetz v. Foos, 14 Minn. 265, and cases cited.

The statute under which this corporation was incorporated authorizes, by implication at least, the corporations contemplated by it to create debts in the ordinary transaction of their business ; and, since the old rule that a corporation can only contract under its corporate seal has been relaxed so as not to apply to contracts in the daily and ordinary transaction of its business, there is no reason why such debts may not be evidenced by promissory notes. The note in question was, therefore, valid.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.