Minnesota Supreme Court, 1893

Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 1, 1893 · Mitchell, Took, Vanderburgh

53 Minn. 370; 55 N.W. 550; 1893 Minn. LEXIS 340 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

James H. Foote, for appellant., J. G. é W. H. Michael, 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 1919, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Bacon v. Bankers Trust & Savings Bank (Minn. 1919)
Antrim Lumber Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank (Okla. 1916)
Evans v. Johnson (8th Cir. 1906)
Denison & Northern Railway Co. v. Raney-Alton Mercantile Co. (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1899)

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

Mitchell, J.

This appeal presents no question of any merit.

The action was to recover money loaned to the defendant corporation, and to enforce the individual liability of the defendant stockholders therefor.

*371That the money was loaned to the corporation by either the plaintiff or her husband is not in dispute under the evidence. It was paid into the company’s treasury by the husband as the plaintiff’s money, and at his direction credited to her on its books. He has never made any claim to it, but, on the contrary, insisted on the trial that the money belonged to his wife; and it is no concern of the company to whom it in fact originally belonged.

Neither is it material whether the officer who procured the loan had authority to do so or not. By retaining the money and appropriating it to its own use, the company has ratified the transaction.

It is equally unimportant that the inducement to plaintiff to make the loan might have been the provisions of the contract between her husband and certain stockholders and officers of the company, looking to a transfer to him of a controlling interest in its stock, etc.

Order affirmed.

Vanderburgh, J., absent, took no part.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 550.)

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