Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.Īt 12:15 on Decemthe Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.ĭefendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.Ī Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on Decemat 10:00 am. RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |