Minnesota Supreme Court, 1884

Lucy v. Wilkins

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 19, 1884 · Vanderburgh

33 Minn. 21; 21 N.W. 849; 1884 Minn. LEXIS 61 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thomas Canty, for appellant., F. Hooker, for respondent.

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 1935, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Townsend v. Milaca Motor Co. (Minn. 1935)
Midland National Bank v. Security Elevator Co. (Minn. 1924)
G. B. Small Radio Co. v. Southwest General Electric Co. (Okla. 1929)

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

Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant Jacoby demurs to the complaint, on the ground that he was improperly joined with the other defendants in the suit. They executed a lease to plaintiff’s assignor, running five years from its date, June 9, 1883, rent payable monthly in *22advance, and at the time of its execution he signed a guaranty indorsed thereon as follows: “For value received I hereby guarantee the payment of the rent of the within premises, according to the terms and conditions of said lease, for the term of one year from and after June 1, 1883.” The action is for three months’rent accruing within the year and remaining unpaid. The case does not differ in principle from Hammel v. Beardsley, 31 Minn. 314, where the payee of a note, on its transfer, indorsed thereon an absolute guaranty of payment, and it was held that he might be sued jointly with the maker, and be considered “a surety on the same instrument, ” within the meaning of Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 36. It is true that in that case the guarantor was a party named in the original instrument, b'ut under our statute it cannot be material that the guarantor is a third party, or that his undertaking is indorsed upon the principal agreement instead of being incorporated in it, (Carman v. Plass, 23 N. Y. 286,) or written under it. Pomeroy on Remedies, § 410.

Order affirmed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

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