Minnesota Supreme Court, 1880

Lyman v. Rasmussen & Nelson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 28, 1880 · Gilfillan

27 Minn. 384; 7 N.W. 687; 1880 Minn. LEXIS 109 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John Whytock, for appellants., Lovely & Morgan, 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

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Hall v. Parsons (Minn. 1908)
Hamill v. German Nat. Bank (Colo. 1889)

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.

Action for goods sold and delivered. Thedefence was that after the debt became due the defendants transferred to plaintiff two promissory notes of third persons-as collateral security for the debt, in consideration whereof the plaintiff agreed with defendants that the time for payment of the debt should be extended to April 1, 1879. The action was brought before that date.

*385Whether a covenant not to sue within a given time be a defence, or, as some eases hold, be not a defence, to an action brought within the time, we have no hesitation in holding that a valid extension of the time of payment is a defence to an action brought within the time of the extension. During such time the debtor is not in default; the debt is not demandable, not due. So far as there may have been a default, and a right to sue for it prior to the time of the agreement to extend the time of payment, it must be taken to be waived by the extension. Such is of course the intention of the parties to the agreement; and where the agreement is valid, there can be no reason why a court should disregard it.

Judgment affirmed.

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