Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McWethy v. Norby, 173 N.W. 803.

26 citing documents.

Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1956
Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1956
Bank v. Thompson, 79 Minn. 151 , ; Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, 132 Minn. 404 , , 6 A. L. R. 1663; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; Midland Nat.
Grocers, Inc. v. Horstman 46 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1951
Grocers, Inc. v. Horstman 46 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1951
& Supp. §§ 879, 952a; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; State Bank v. Missia, 144 Minn. 410 , ; Albrecht v. Rathai, 150 Minn. 256 , ; St.
Chamberlin v. Twin Ports Development Co. 261 N.W. 577 Minn. 1935
Chamberlin v. Twin Ports Development Co. 261 N.W. 577 Minn. 1935
Bank of Phillips v. Denfield, 143 Minn. 281 , ; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; State Bank of Rogers v. Missia, 144 Minn. 410 , ; Farmers State Bank v. Cooke, 149 Minn. 227 , ; Henning v. Carlson, 151 Minn. 419 , ; Olsen v. Hoffmann, 175 Minn. 287 , .
Olsen v. Hoffmann 221 N.W. 10 Minn. 1928
Olsen v. Hoffmann 221 N.W. 10 Minn. 1928
G. S. 1923, § 7102; Goedhard v. Folstad, 156 Minn. 453 , ; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , .
Silliman v. Dobner 205 N.W. 696 Minn. 1925
Silliman v. Dobner 205 N.W. 696 Minn. 1925
The cases of McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , , and Farmers State Bank v. Skellet, 149 Minn. 266 , , relate to the wrongful use of accommodation paper which has no vitality—no real inception— until negotiated.
Veigel v. Johnson 204 N.W. 36 Minn. 1925
Veigel v. Johnson 204 N.W. 36 Minn. 1925
The defendant contends that the evidence warranted the jury in finding that the note was given in reliance upon a promise that it should not be negotiated, and that, if it was so given and the bank took it with notice of the promise, it was not a holder in due course., McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , , and Wade v. Nat.
United States Mortgage Co. v. Hotel Radisson Co. 201 N.W. 318 Minn. 1924
United States Mortgage Co. v. Hotel Radisson Co. 201 N.W. 318 Minn. 1924
Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, 132 Minn. 404 , , 6 A. L. R. 1663; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; Wade v. National Bank, 144 Minn. 187 , ; Farmers & M. S. Bank v. Graif, 150 Minn. 315 , ; First Nat.
St. Paul State Bank v. Rippe Grain & Milling Co. 199 N.W. 519 Minn. 1924
St. Paul State Bank v. Rippe Grain & Milling Co. 199 N.W. 519 Minn. 1924
N. I. Act); McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; Farmers State Bank v. Skellet, 149 Minn. 266 , .
Henning v. Carlson 186 N.W. 799 Minn. 1922
Henning v. Carlson 186 N.W. 799 Minn. 1922
Bank of Phillips v. Denfeld, 143 Minn. 281 , ; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; State Bank of Rogers v. Missia, 144 Minn. 410 , ; *421 Albrecht v. Rathai, 150 Minn. 256 , .
Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Graif 185 N.W. 374 Minn. 1921
Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Graif 185 N.W. 374 Minn. 1921
See McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; Wade v. National Bank of Commerce, 144 Minn. 187 , ; Farmers State Bank v. Skellet, 149 Minn. 366 , .
Farmers State Bank v. Skellet 183 N.W. 831 Minn. 1921
Farmers State Bank v. Skellet 183 N.W. 831 Minn. 1921
G. S. 1913, § 5867, and in such event the defense was good within McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , , and cases cited.
Farmers State Bank v. Cooke 183 N.W. 137 Minn. 1921
Farmers State Bank v. Cooke 183 N.W. 137 Minn. 1921
Bank of Rolette v. Andersen, 144 Minn. 288 , ; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , ; First Nat.
Wade v. National Bank of Commerce 174 N.W. 889 Minn. 1919
Wade v. National Bank of Commerce 174 N.W. 889 Minn. 1919
■ It seems also that the charge was right, on the theory that the title to the note was defective in that it was negotiated by Buckpitt “in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud.” Section 5867, G. S. 1913; McWethy v. Norby, 143 Minn. 386 , .