Cairns v. Keith
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 1905, 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.
- Hanson v. Bailey (Minn. 1905)
- Winfield Building & Loan Ass'n v. McMullen (Kan. 1898)
- Hall v. Lamb (Minn. 1892)
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
This action is upon a promissory note alleged to have been made by the defendant. The defense is that the defendant’s name, subscribed as maker of the note, was a forgery, and he testified as a witness on the trial that he did not sign it. In support of a motion by the plaintiff for a new trial, after verdict had been rendered for the defendant, a letter was produced, shown to have been written by the defendant to a third party, and the authorship of which is not denied, in which the defendant refers to-this action in terms which may well be regarded as recognizing his legal liability on the note. The court granted a new trial. This was a reasonable exer
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.