Minnesota Supreme Court, 1880

Frank v. Irgens

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 22, 1880 · Gilfillan

27 Minn. 43; 6 N.W. 380; 1880 Minn. LEXIS 12 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Gilman & Clough, for appellant, argued that the instrument is not a promissory note, and does not import a consideration; and therefore the complaint is defective in not stating the particular consideration on which the promise was founded. 1 Chitty PI. 293 ; Woods v. North, 84 Pa. St. 407; First Nat. Bank v. Gaar, 63 Mo. 33., E. O. Wheeler, for respondents, argued that the instrument is a negotiable promissory note, citing 2 Parsons Notes & Bills, 413-4; Smith v. Silvers, 32 Ind. 321; Stoneman v. Pyle, 35 Ind. 103; Sperry v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184; Gaar v. Louisville Banking Co., 11 Bush, (Ky.) 180.

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 1955, 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

11 later published cases cite this decision.

ESTATE OF FALLON v. Fallon (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)
Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Utne (D. Minn. 1962)
First National Bank v. Olson (Minn. 1955)
Liberty State Bank v. Metropolitan Church Ass'n (Minn. 1923)
Steinbach v. Brant (Minn. 1900)
Elmquist v. Markoe (Minn. 1888)
Daniel v. Snowdoun Ass'n (Miss. 1987)
Finegan v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Mass. 1938)
Cooperative Dairymen's League v. Hansen (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
Parish v. Craig (D.C. Cir. 1913)
Lipsmeier v. Vehslage (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1886)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The motion to dismiss the action, for *45insufficiency of the complaint, was not made until the instrument described as the basis of the cause of action had been introduced in evidence, without objection. This, if the contract itself be valid on its face, cured the defect, if there was any, alleged against the complaint, that it did not sufficiently state a consideration for the promise sued on.

It is immaterial whether the instrument is or is not a promissory note. If it does not bear that character, it is still good as an ordinary contract. It contains a promise to pay, and admits “value received” as the consideration for the promise. It makes out, prima facie, a binding promise, upon a valid consideration; and its introduction on the trial entitled plaintiff to recover, unless a defence to it was shown.

Order affirmed.

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