Sears v. Wempner
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 1946, 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.
- Augustin v. Ziemer (Minn. 1946)
- Harrington v. Leighton (S.D. 1926)
- McCaffery v. Burkhardt (Minn. 1905)
- Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co. (Fla. 1916)
- Theopold v. Deike (Minn. 1899)
- Hildebrand v. Burger (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)
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 indorsement on each of the several notes held by the defendant Stahman against defendant Wempner, and secured by the mortgage, “Interest paid to November 20, 1876,” was in the nature of a receipt, and not of a contract, and might be contradicted or exp’ained by parol. This being so, the only question in the case is whether the evidence sustains the finding of fact by the court below.. The evidence furnished by the indorsements that the note then given for the interest was in payment of such interest, so as. to extinguish that part of the indebtedness evidenced by the notes, is strong. But the evidence of Stahman, that it was;not given or received in payment, is direct and explicit, and not contradicted except by the indorsements, thus producing a conflict in the evidence which was for' the court trying the question of fact to determine. We cannot disturb that determination.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.