Selma Savings Bank v. Harlan
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Van Burén District Court. — Hon. D. M. Anderson, Judge. Action on a promissory note to which the defendant Hinkle only interposed a defense. Verdict was directed as prayed, and judgment entered thereon. H. A. Hinkle 'appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, C. J.
The action is on a note for $545, dated August 20, 1912, and payable six months thereafter. M. T. Harlan signed as principal and H. A. Hinkle as surety. Its purpose was to take up three notes previously executed, one of which, at least, was signed'by both of them. One of the defenses interposed by Hinkle was that the note never took effect. He testified that they went to the bank, where he said to the cashier:
That Mark (Harlan) was to give me an assignment, signed by him and wife, to go on the note for $545; this assignment to cover their interest in the A. "W. Harlan estate. . . . When I…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Higgins v. . RidgwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Eadie, Guilford & Co. v. AshbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Niblock v. . SpragueNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Warren v. BranchWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Bank of Monroe v. Anderson Bros. Mining & RailwaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Anthon State Bank v. BernardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Herron v. BrintonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Waters v. Byers Bros. & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Waukee Savings Bank v. JonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Andrew v. HansonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.