Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller
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 1933, 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
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Johnson Hardware Co. v. Kempf (Minn. 1933)
- In re Estate of Nygren (Minn. 1933)
- Fljozdal v. Johnson (Minn. 1933)
- Dakota State Bank v. Winona Wagon Co. (Minn. 1925)
- Merchants National Bank v. Bryngelson (Minn. 1924)
- Skelton v. Grimm (Minn. 1923)
- Midland National Bank v. Farmers Co-operative Elevator Co. (Minn. 1923)
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
Defendant Miller made and delivered to defendant Devney, in payment for the latter’s stock in plaintiff hank, his certain promissory note for the sum of $1,851, payable on demand after date. The note was negotiable and thereafter Devney for value and in the usual course of business indorsed and transferred it to plaintiff. The indorsement was in blank, thereby imposing an unconditional liability upon Devney. There was default in the payment and this action was brought to recover against both the maker and indorser. Defendant Devney, the indorser, interposed in defense an alleged verbal agreement that he was not to become personally liable on the indorsement and that at the time the note was so indorsed the president of plaintiff bank agreed to stamp over defendant’s signature the words “without recourse,” and thus give force and effect to the agreement. The agreement if made was never carried out by the president of the hank, and when the note was subsequently transferred to the bank it bore defendant’s blank indorsement only. At the conclusion of the trial the court ruled that the evidence tending to show the verbal agreement, which was all-objected to by plaintiff, was incompetent, because varying and contradicting the written contract as evidenced by the note and blank indorsement, and a verdict was directed for plaintiff.
In this the court was entirely right. The evidence of the verbal agreement referred to was clearly incompetent, -and was properly finally rejected by the court. Its only effect was to contradict the contract, as evidenced by the blank indorsement, and was no defense to the action. Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38 Minn. 352, 37 N. W. 586, and cases therein cited. Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255, and other like cases are not in point. They are clearly differentiated in Security Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Pulver, 131 Minn. 454, 155 N. W. 641.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.