Pattridge v. Palmer
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 1977, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Alan M. Johnson (Wis. 2021)
- State v. Alan M. Johnson (Wis. 2021)
- State v. Alan M. Johnson (Wis. 2021)
- State v. Taylor (Minn. 1977)
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
Our holding in the prior appeal of this case must determine this one. See Pattridge v. Palmer, 201 Minn. 387, 277 N. W. 18. We there held that as to that part of the cause of action upon a promissory note which was barred by the statute of limitations of California, where defendant was resident, there could be no action in Minnesota, where plaintiff was resident and the note payable, even though the action was brought within the period of the statute of limitations of this state. Upon this appeal from a judgment of dismissal of an action brought against the other two comakers of the same note, the facts are indistinguishable from those in the prior case. It should be evident to all that what is law for one of several comakers is law for the rest. 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 398.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.