Phelps v. Sargent
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 1914, 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.
- Orr v. Sutton (Minn. 1914)
- Norton v. Hall (Ark. 1921)
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
This is the second appeal in this action. See 69 Minn. 118, 71
After tbe case was remanded on tbe former appeal, defendants answered, and allege in tbeir answer that, at tbe time defendant Howard transferred the note in suit to Hewit, it was agreed between them that “Howard should not be in any manner liable on said promissory note until after tbe maturity thereof on tbe 1st day of July, 1898.” It is not alleged that there was a mutual mistake in reducing this agreement to writing, or in incorporating it into tbe guaranty, and tbe answer contains no counterclaim for tbe reformation of tbe guaranty on any such ground. On tbe trial, defendants offered to prove that tbe above-quoted agreement was orally made at tbe time alleged.
Tbe court did not err in rejecting tbe offer, which was clearly an attempt to vary tbe written contract of guaranty by an alleged -oral agreement made at tbe same time that tbe written contract was made.
Tbe court did not err in ordering a verdict for plaintiff.
Tbe order denying a new trial is affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.