Lahmers v. Schmidt
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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Larsen v. Erickson (Minn. 1946)
- Landigan v. Mayer (Or. 1898)
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 agreement of the defendant with Harmon to pay the amount of the note and mortgage held by Charles Lah-mers against him was a valid obligation, upon a sufficient consideration moving from Harmon to the defendant. This was not disputed by defendant upon the argument. The verdict of the jury determined that the defendant undertook to pay off the debt and discharge the incumbrance in question, being the amount of principal and interest due when the agreement became operative. Subsequently, Charles Lahmers sold and assigned the mortgage, together with the note accompanying the same, to the plaintiff, who brings this action. The defendant contends that the cause of action which Charles Lah-mers had against him upon the alleged promise did not pass by this ■assignment. To this we do not agree. The assignment carried with it the obligations of all persons who were bound to pay the principal debt. The promisee, Charles Lahmers, acquired, through the promise of the defendant, additional security for the payment of his debt, and such security passed with the assignment to the plaintiff as an incident, and he may enforce it. Barlow v. Myers, 64 N. Y. 41; Craig v. Parkis, 40 N. Y. 181.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.