Minnesota Supreme Court, 1897

Pfenninger v. Kokesch

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 26, 1897 · Mitchell

68 Minn. 81; 70 N.W. 867; 1897 Minn. LEXIS 344 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. E. Leeman and Jos. A. Echstem, for appellant., Albert L. Young, 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 2010, 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

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Nordin v. Retzlaff (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
Erickson v. Husemoller (Minn. 1934)
Atwood v. Lammers (Minn. 1906)
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Smith (Neb. 1942)
Greve v. State Bank (Minn. 1941)
Kranz v. Kranz (Minn. 1933)
Woodcock v. Putnam (Minn. 1907)
Frew v. Scoular (Neb. 1917)

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 action was brought on the joint and several promissory note of the defendant and his father, the former being surety for the latter. The cause of action against defendant was barred by the statute of limitations, unless the running of the statute had been interrupted by certain partial payments. All of these payments were made by the father. It is the law of this state that a partial payment by one of several joint and several debtors is inoperative to prevent the running of the statute as to the others. Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 63, 27 N. W. 379. In order to prevent the running of the statute, a payment must have been made by the debtor in person, or for him by his authority, or for him and in his name without authority and subsequently ratified by him. The mere fact that he has knowledge of payments being made by his co-debtor is not sufficient. McMullen v. Rafferty, 89 N. Y. 456; Littlefield v. Littlefield, 91 N. Y. 203.

*82We have examined the record in vain for any evidence, introduced or offered, that these payments were made by the procurement of the defendant, or for him, or in his name, or that he ever ratified them as payments made for him or in his behalf. So far as appears, they were all made by the father on his own motion, and in his own behalf. The mere fact that after defendant knew that his father had made these payments he verbally promised to pay the balance would not amount to a ratification of the payments as having been made for him or in his behalf. Construed most favorably for the plaintiff, this was all that he offered to prove. Of course no verbal acknowledgment or promise is sufficient to take a case out of the operation of the statute. G-. S. 1894, § 5154.

Order affirmed.

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