Case ID: minn_71/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COLLINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WABASHA v. HENRY BURKHARDT and Others.
    
    January 14, 1898.
    Nos. 10,685 — (105).
    (Promissory Note — Action against Maker — Several Judgments against Guarantors — Subsequent Judgment against Maker.
    In an action brought against B. as the maker of a promissory note and B. and W. as joint guarantors of payment, a several judgment may be entered against B., the maker, and, as to him, it is immaterial that separate and several judgments have previously been entered against the guarantors.
    Action begun in May, 1895, in the district court for Wabasha county, upon a promissory note for $1,500 against Henry JBurkhardt, as the maker, and William Witte and W. F. Bickel, as the guarantors of payment. Judgment upon default for $1,632.33 was entered against defendant Bickel on December 3, 1895. Defendant Witte answered, and upon a trial before Gould, J., and a jury, the latter returned a verdict for plaintiff. Upon this verdict judgment for $1,425.18 was entered against defendant Witte on January 11, 1897. A summons in the action was served on defendant Burkhardt on January 15, 1897, and on February 18, 1897, judgment upon default for $1,459.13 was entered against defendant Burkhardt.
    On March 2, 1897, defendants obtained an order upon the plaintiff to show cause why the judgments should not be vacated and set aside. On the return day of the order plaintiff consented that the judgments against Bickel and Witte, respectively, should be vacated, but opposed the opening of the judgment against Burkhardt. The judgments against the guarantors were then opened, but the court held the matter of the Burkhardt judgment open. On March 20, 1897, plaintiff upon due notice made its motion for an order directing the clerk to enter a joint judgment against defendants Bickel and Witte for the amount then due. On April 14, 1897, the court, Snow, J., denied the motion to set aside the judgment against defendant Burkhardt and denied the application to enter a joint judgment at that time against defendants Bickel and Witte, and in other particulars vacated its order of March 2, 1897. From this order of April 14, 1897, defendant Burkhardt appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Campbell & Campbell, for appellant.
    
      George E. Selover, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 73 N. W. 858.
    
   COLLINS, J.

Defendant Burkhardt (appellant here) was the maker of the note sued upon, and Bickel and Witte joined in a guaranty of payment, written on its back. All were joined as defendants in the action upon the authority of Hammel v. Beardsley, 31 Minn. 314, 17 N. W. 858, although Burkhardt was not served with the summons until some time after separate and several judgments had been entered against the joint guarantors, first against Bickel and then against Witte. Of this fact Burkhardt cannot complain, for it was entirely proper to enter a several judgment against him. Bank v. Smith, 57 Minn. 374, 59 N. W. 311. And it could make no difference that such judgment was rendered after judgments against the guarantors had been entered, instead of before. Davison v. Harmon, 65 Minn. 402, 67 N. W. 1015, is not in point for obvious reasons.

Order affirmed.