Reed v. Reed
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Gourt. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. I. Testimony of a cotemporaneous parol agreement between defendant and Joseph Lambrite was inadmissible to change the legal character of the instrument made by the defendant to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson District Gourt. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. I. Testimony of a cotemporaneous parol agreement between defendant and Joseph Lambrite was inadmissible to change the legal character of the instrument made by the defendant to plaintiff. Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 John. 189; Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 Barn. & Aid. 233 ; Sands v. Wood, 1 Iowa, 263; Rawson v. Walker et al., 1 Stark. 361; Mosely v, Hanford, 10 Barn. & Cress. 729; Myers v. Sunderland, 4 G. Greene, 569 ; Smith v. Brown, 3 Hawks, 580; May v. Babcock et al., 4 Ohio, 334; 1 Phil. Ev., Cow., Hill &…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, C. J.
The plaintiff, upon the trial, to support his right to the possession of the property obtained by the writ of replevin issued in this cause, introduced in evidence the following receipt, which the defendant admitted was signed by him, to wit: “ Received, Iowa City, October 26th, 1858, from .Julius A. Reed, Treasurer of the Iowa College, the following described notes and accounts and *7personal property, to collect or sell the same, as may best secure the payment thereof, or otherwise as said Julius A. Reed, Treasurer, may from time to time direct, and account to him, the said Julius A. Reed,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. ArnoldNew York Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hattiesburg Auto Sales Co. v. MorrisonMississippi Supreme Court · 1924
- Burrows v. WaddellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879