Minnesota Supreme Court, 1897

Walsh v. Featherstone

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 4, 1897 · Canty

67 Minn. 103; 69 N.W. 811; 1897 Minn. LEXIS 109 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

F A. Gilman, for appellant., Rome G. Brown, 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 1973, 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.

Christy v. Menasha Corporation (Minn. 1973)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rhode Island Covering Co. (Superior Court of Rhode Island 1932)

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

CANTY, J.

The defendant made a bond, or instrument under seal, dated August 1, 1893, by which, in consideration of one dollar and other valuable considerations, he promised as follows:

“I * * * do hereby guaranty * * * Mississippi Land, Loan & Investment Company * * * against any liability by reason of any transaction” of said company “entered into since the fourth, day of March, 1890.”

*105The plaintiff had a transaction with said company since that time, to wit, in 1891, by which it became indebted to him in the sum of $292.90, and brings this action to recover from defendant on this contract the amount so due him. On the trial the court ordered a verdict for defendant, and, from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. The order must be affirmed.

In the agreement above referred to, defendant does not promise to pay any of the debts of the investment company. His promise to guaranty it against liability is merely an agreement to indemnify it or save it harmless (see Bausman v. Credit G. Co., 47 Minn. 377, 50 N. W. 496), and cannot be construed as an agreement for the benefit of third parties. Even the obligee himself cannot maintain an action on such an agreement until he has paid the claim against which he has by the contract been indemnified. Campbell v. Rotering, 42 Minn. 115, 43 N. W. 795; Weller v. Eames, 15 Minn. 376 (461).

Order affirmed.

On Motion for Reargument.

January 20, 1897.

The motion for a reargument is denied; but whether or not the obligee himself could maintain an action on this agreement is a question as to which there may be some doubt, and one which it was not necessary to pass on in this case. For these reasons the dictum at the end of the opinion stating that he cannot is withdrawn.

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