Minnesota Supreme Court, 1898

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Waller

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Waller
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 15, 1898 · Start
73 Minn. 52; 75 N.W. 732; 1898 Minn. LEXIS 749 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

M. O. Brady, for appellant., B. B. Brower, 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 1910, 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

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Waller

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

START, O. J.

Action to recover from the defendants, as guarantors, the amount of two promissory notes. The defendant Larson answered, setting up two defenses: (1) That, without his knowledge or consent, the plaintiff for a valuable consideration extended the time for the payment of the notes; (2) payment of the notes before the commencement of the action.. On the trial the defendant was required by the court, on motion of the plaintiff, to elect which defense he would stand upon, on the ground that the two defenses were inconsistent. He elected to rely upon his first defense, and excepted to the order of the court compelling him so to elect. Verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial. 0

The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to elect which defense he would rely upon. A sufficient exception was taken to the ruling. The defenses were not inconsistent, for both might be true. The time of payment may have been extended, and the notes paid after they became due. Roblee v. Secrest, 28 Minn. 43, 8 N. W. 904; Gammon v. Ganfield, *5342 Minn. 368, 44 N. W. 125. It was therefore error to compel the defendant to elect, for which a new trial must be granted.

Order reversed, and a new trial granted.

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