Cited by

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Minar Rodelius Co. v. Lysen, 202 Minn. 149 , .

The following cases are helpful: Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Fountain, 128 Minn. 198 , , L. R. A. 1916B, 1036; National Finance Co. v. Mitchell, 157 Minn. 47, 50 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Merchants Nat.

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 314 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100 , ; Liberty State Bank v. Metropolitan Church Assn. 154 Minn. 248 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Nat.

We are therefore relieved from determining whether this is a case of a contract delivered on condition that it should not become operative until after the happening of some event (ruled by such cases as Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Fountain, 128 Minn. 198 , ; Wade v. Nat.

A conditional delivery may be shown under the rule of Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , , followed in a number of cases since.

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , , and other like cases are not in point.

The pleader seems to have had in mind three defenses: (1) Want of consideration; (2) a conditional delivery of the note, under the doctrine of Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , 15 N.'W.

It was competent to show that an agreement was made that the note should not become operative until signed by defendant; Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Merchants’ Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542 , ; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100 , , and in that event the delivery would not be complete until so signed.

This agreement, as pleaded, was that it was agreed at the time the notes were given “that demand would not be made upon said notes and the same would not become effective until all collateral thereon was exhausted.” The claim *456 is that this makes a case under the doctrine of "conditional delivery” as illustrated in Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 314 , , and subsequent eases.

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Merchants Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100 , ; Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta, 123 Minn. 69 , .

Merchants’ Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542 , ; Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , 15 N. W 255; Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48 , ; Smith v. Mus *73 setter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100 , .

4 Wigmore, Evidence, 3435, § 2435; Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Reynolds v. Robinson, supra, Nutting v. Minnesota, 98 Wis.

Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Merchants Exch.

See Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Ward v. Johnson, 57 Minn. 301 , .

In Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 314 , ( ) (followed in subsequent cases), we held, in deference to the great weight of authority, that under this rule, where an unsealed written instrument is signed, and delivered to the proper party, parol evidence is admissible to show that notwithstanding such delivery the agreement of the parties was that such instrumen

The defendant, however, attempts to bring the case within the rule of Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ( 15 N. W. Rep.

The defendant argues, and probably the court below thought, that the case comes within the principle of Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ( 15 N. W. Rep.

It was held in Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ( 15 N. W. Rep.

The offer was rejected by the court, and upon the.authority of Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , we are of opinion that the rejection was error.