Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. Van Valkenburg
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 1926, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Christianson v. National Citizens Bank (Minn. 1926)
- Hawley Lumber Co. v. Nordling (Minn. 1926)
- Gage v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. (Minn. 1923)
- American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Grant (Minn. 1916)
- Witt v. Wilson (Tex. App. 1913)
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
Appeal from an order of the district court of the county of Clay denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The action was brought upon a promissory note, which was signed by the defendant and made payable to the plaintiff. The defense of the defendant, J. G-. Van Valkenburg, hereafter referred to as the respondent, was that he signed the note without any consideration. This issue was tried by the court without a jury, and findings of fact and conclusions of law made to the effect that the note was signed by the respondent without any consideration, and that he have judgment for his costs.
The plaintiff here urges in support of its appeal that the finding that there was no consideration for the execution of the note by the respondent is unsupported by the evidence, and that he is estopped from denying liability on the note. The undisputed evidence tends to establish these facts:
The note was originally executed by the respondent’s son, and the respondent was in no manner connected with the note, or the consideration for which it was given. After the note was past due, an agent of the plaintiff called upon the respondent, and told him that he had the note against his son, that it was due, and that he was going to sue his son, but he had not time to go and see him. The agent then requested the respondent to put his name on the note, so that he could show his company that he had not been idle, but had been doing something. The respondent then signed the note at the-agent’s request, without any consideration whatever. The son never requested the respondent to sign the note, and had no knowledge that, he had done so until long afterwards. Other than as stated, there was no evidence that there was any agreement to extend the time of’ the payment of the note, or that the time of payment of the note was. ever extended, in reliance on the fact that respondent had signed it.
It is clear from the evidence that the respondent signed the note without any circumstances of advantage to his son or disadvantage to the plaintiff, and without any consideration. Security Bank v. Bell, 32 Minn. 409, 21 N. W. 470; Turle v. Sargent, 63 Minn. 211, 65 N. W. 349, 56 Am. St. 475. The evidence discloses none of the
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.