Barnard v. Gaslin
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 1912, 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
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Burwell v. Gaylord (Minn. 1912)
- People's Bank v. Rockwood (Minn. 1894)
- Holmes v. First National Bank (Neb. 1893)
- Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co. (Minn. 1891)
- Cummings v. Kent (Ohio 1886)
- Coon v. Pruden (Minn. 1878)
- Dye v. Scott (Ohio 1878)
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
The defendant Gaslin, who had endorsed a note payable to his order, and which was delivered to the plaintiff, is attempted to be held upon the note, notwithstanding failure to seiwe him with notice of non-payment, by oral testimony that the actual contract between the jiarties was other than that of endorser and endorsee. No fraud or mistake, such as to avoid the endorsement, or justify a reformation of the written contract, is alleged. The case comes within the rule laid down in Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 323 ; Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426; First National Bank v. National Marine Bank, 20 Minn. 63, which held that oral testimony was not competent to vary the contract of endorsement.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.