Ward v. Dickson Bros.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from O’Brien District Court. — Hon. Scott M. Ladd, Judge. Plaintiff brings this action to charge the defendants as indorsers of two promissory notes executed to them by one F. M. Bisbee, and indorsed by them before maturity to the Hartley State Bank, by indorsement as follows: “Pay Hartley State Bank or order.
Read the full summary
Appeal from O’Brien District Court. — Hon. Scott M. Ladd, Judge. Plaintiff brings this action to charge the defendants as indorsers of two promissory notes executed to them by one F. M. Bisbee, and indorsed by them before maturity to the Hartley State Bank, by indorsement as follows: “Pay Hartley State Bank or order. I waive demand of payment and notice of nonpayment, and guaranty payment of this note at maturity, with a reasonable attorney’s fee. if collected by suit. [Signed] Dickson Bros.” Upon each of the notes appeared this further indorsement: “Pay M. Byers, without recourse. [Signed]…
1Opinion of the CourtGiven, J.
1 I. Appellants’ first contention is that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s motion for a verdict. The controlling issue was whether the-transaction between the Hartley State Bank and W. P. Ward was a payment or purchase of the notes in suit. In sustaining plaintiff’s motion, the court said: “The evidence on the part of the plaintiff and the defendants shows conclusively that the notes were transferred, and not paid; and for that reason the court will ¡sustain the motion, and instruct the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.” We will not set out the evidence. It is enough to say…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stephenson v. CookSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Thompson v. Silvers & HoffmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Julius King Optical Co. v. TreatMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hicks v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Strand v. BleakleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1932