Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

Miller v. State Bank

Miller v. State Bank
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 24, 1894 · No. 8803 · Book, Gilfillan, Sick, Took
57 Minn. 319; 59 N.W. 309; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 293 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Cotton Dibell & Reynolds, for appellant., Wm. A. Cant and Walter Ayers, 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 1896, 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

Miller v. State Bank

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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.

Plaintiff was agent for Simon Clark & Co., and, as such, deposited money of theirs with defendant to the credit of himself, — “A. J. Miller, Agent.” Afterwards Simon Clark & Co. made an assignment in insolvency.

Whether plaintiff could or could not, while his agency continued, maintain -an action in his oavu name on the deposit, he certainly could not after his relation to the deposit ceased by the revocation of his agency with respect to it

*323The assignment of his principals, Simon Clark & Co., worked such revocation.

Order reversed.

Book, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 309.)

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