Case ID: minn_55/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilnillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Grant Wyatt vs. William L. Jackson.
    Submitted on briefs Oct. 3, 1893.
    Affirmed Oct. 20, 1893.
    No. 8137.
    A good consideration.
    A certain transaction held to afford a sufficient consideration for a promissory note.
    (Opinion published 56 N. W. Rep. 578.)
    Appeal by defendant, William L. Jackson, from an order of tbe Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Roger S. Powell, J., made July 27, 1892, refusing his motion for a new trial.
    The plaintiff, Grant Wyatt, sold defendant on March 15, 1892, twenty shares of stock in the Shaw Iron Company for $400, and took his note for the amount due thirty days thereafter with interest. The stock was left with Wyatt and he gave Jackson a receipt stating that he held the stock as collateral security for the payment of the note. When the note fell due it was not paid and Wyatt sold the stock April 22, 1892, on the market and realized therefor $197, which he indorsed on the note, and brought this action to recover the balance. The Court made findings and ordered judgment for plaintiff for $211. Defendant moved for a new trial, claiming that the decision was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. His motion was denied and he appeals. His only contention here is, that as the stock was never in fact delivered to him there was no consideration for the note.
    
      O. L. Young, for appellant.
    
      A. E. McManus, for respondent.
   Gilnillan, C. J.

It is a matter of no importance in this case what the character of the transaction in respect to the stock was,— that it was an executory contract by plaintiff to transfer the stock to defendant, or a transfer by plaintiff to defendant, and a pledging or mortgaging by the latter to the former, — for, whatever its character, defendant acquired by it rights in respect to the stock which, upon performance of the contract on his part, he could enforce against plaintiff; and the vesting in him of such rights-was a sufficient consideration for the note he executed for the stock.

Order affirmed.