Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1911

Cross v. Page & Hill Co.

Cross v. Page & Hill Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 24, 1911
116 Minn. 123; 133 N.W. 178; 1911 Minn. LEXIS 946 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Chester McKusick, for appellant., A. M. Crowell, 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 1954, 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

Cross v. Page & Hill Co.

Cases that cite this one

3 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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was a corporation doing business at Minneapolis, and engaged in buying and selling cedar poles and posts. One E. A. Hasty, was its representative at Black Duck, in Beltrami county, and during tbe year 1909 Hasty purchased from one James Larkin poles and timber amounting to about $900. Larkin signed an order on tbe Page & Hill Company to pay a third party $100; tbe company being indebted to him at that time in excess of that amount. It was presented to Mr. Hasty, wbo indorsed it as follows: “O. K. E. A. Plasty.” Tbe assignee presented tbe order to defendant com*124pany, and payment was refused. The trial court found that the assignee duly gave notice to defendant that the order had been executed and delivered, that defendant owed Larkin in excess of $100 at that time, and that payment had been duly demanded, and ordered judgment for plaintiff.

1. An assignment of a chose in action is valid as between the assignor and assignee, and notice is only necessary to charge the debtor with the duty of payment to the assignee. Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 244, 15 N. W. 113.

2. Conceding that, when a debtor refuses to recognize an assignment, an independent action by the assignee against the debtor will not lie, when only a part of the debt was assigned (Dean v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 53 Minn. 504, 55 N. W. 628; Schilling v. Mullen, 55 Minn. 122, 56 N. W. 586, 43 Am. St. 475), the rule has no application where the debtor has notice of the assignment and makes no objection thereto.

Affirmed.

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