Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 170 N.W. 925.

40 citing documents.

, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For example, in State Bank of Morton v. Adams , the supreme court stated that “[a] bank is chargeable with knowledge of facts known to an officer transacting its business and pertaining to matters with in the scope of its business.” 142 Minn. 63, 67, 170 N.W.
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren 244 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1976
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren 244 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1976
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63
Western Surety Co. v. Friederichs 63 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1954
Western Surety Co. v. Friederichs 63 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1954
State Bank v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .
Blumberg v. Taggart 5 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1942
Lake Park Development Co. v. Paul Steenberg Construction Co. 276 N.W. 651 Minn. 1937
Lake Park Development Co. v. Paul Steenberg Construction Co. 276 N.W. 651 Minn. 1937
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .
City of Minneapolis v. First National Bank & Trust Co. 269 N.W. 521 Minn. 1936
City of Minneapolis v. First National Bank & Trust Co. 269 N.W. 521 Minn. 1936
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , ; Farmers & M. State Bank v. Kohler, 159 Minn. 35 , .
Fortier v. McRae 252 N.W. 833 Minn. 1934
Fortier v. McRae 252 N.W. 833 Minn. 1934
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , 70 , 170 N.W.
Peoples State Bank, by Peyton v. Ruppert 249 N.W. 325 Minn. 1933
Peoples State Bank, by Peyton v. Ruppert 249 N.W. 325 Minn. 1933
The rule is well stated in State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , , that where the officer (of the bank) who is interested is the sole representative of the bank in the transaction, his knowledge is chargeable to the bank.
Solway State Bank Ex Rel. Veigel v. School District No. 26 229 N.W. 568 Minn. 1930
Solway State Bank Ex Rel. Veigel v. School District No. 26 229 N.W. 568 Minn. 1930
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , ; Central Met.
Union Central Life Insurance v. Star Insurance Co. of America 227 N.W. 850 Minn. 1929
Union Central Life Insurance v. Star Insurance Co. of America 227 N.W. 850 Minn. 1929
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .
Larson v. Johnson 221 N.W. 871 Minn. 1928
Larson v. Johnson 221 N.W. 871 Minn. 1928
Different facts were present in State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , , where the officer of the bank who conducted the transaction for the bank had notice which a jury could impute to the bank.
Olsen v. Hoffmann 221 N.W. 10 Minn. 1928
Olsen v. Hoffmann 221 N.W. 10 Minn. 1928
State Bank of Rogers v. Missia, 144 Minn. 410 , ; State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , ; Drew v. Wheelihan, 75 Minn. 68 , ; Cole v. Johnson, 127 Minn. 291 , ; King Cattle Co. v. Joseph, 158 Minn. 481 , , .
Solway State Bank v. School District No. 26 212 N.W. 25 Minn. 1927
Solway State Bank v. School District No. 26 212 N.W. 25 Minn. 1927
Query: In that process, was the knowledge of Smith the knowledge of the bank within the rule of State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .
Farmers State Bank v. Miller 209 N.W. 869 Minn. 1926
Farmers State Bank v. Miller 209 N.W. 869 Minn. 1926
The rule of State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , , might require a contrary holding.
Harwood State Bank v. Hendrum Co-Operative Elevator Co. 208 N.W. 24 Minn. 1926
Harwood State Bank v. Hendrum Co-Operative Elevator Co. 208 N.W. 24 Minn. 1926
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , ; Farmers & M. State Bank v. Kohler, 159 Minn. 35 , ; First Nat.
Citizens St. Bank of St. Paul v. Wade 206 N.W. 728 Minn. 1925
Citizens St. Bank of St. Paul v. Wade 206 N.W. 728 Minn. 1925
We think that State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , , and Engen v. Merchants & Mnfg.
Central Metropolitan Bank v. Chippewa County State Bank 199 N.W. 901 Minn. 1924
Central Metropolitan Bank v. Chippewa County State Bank 199 N.W. 901 Minn. 1924
State Bank v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .
First National Bank v. Klimenhagen 199 N.W. 91 Minn. 1924
First National Bank v. Klimenhagen 199 N.W. 91 Minn. 1924
Bank v. Carey, 153 Minn. 246 , ; State Bank v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .
Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Kohler 198 N.W. 413 Minn. 1924
Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Kohler 198 N.W. 413 Minn. 1924
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , , and cases there cited.
First National Bank v. Carey 190 N.W. 182 Minn. 1922
First National Bank v. Carey 190 N.W. 182 Minn. 1922
• In State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , , it is said [at page 68]: “The very tangible and workable rule has been established in this state that a bank is chargeable with knowledge possessed by its active officer pertaining to transactions within the scope of the bank’s business even though such knowledge is acquired in another transaction, i
Darelius v. Commonwealth Mortgage Co. 188 N.W. 208 Minn. 1922
Darelius v. Commonwealth Mortgage Co. 188 N.W. 208 Minn. 1922
State Bank of Morton v. Adams, 142 Minn. 63 , .