Fletcher v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Mahaska District Court. I. Cassiday, after the dissolution of the firm of Lough-ridge & Cassiday, being in possession of the note, and it indorsed in blank, is presumed in law to be the owner. Kelly v. Ford, 4 Iowa 140; Goddard v. Cunningham, 6 Iowa 400; Gordon v. Pitt, 3 Iowa 390; Temple v. Kays,. Morris 9; Voleile v. Parker, Í6 Wend. 619. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mahaska District Court. I. Cassiday, after the dissolution of the firm of Lough-ridge & Cassiday, being in possession of the note, and it indorsed in blank, is presumed in law to be the owner. Kelly v. Ford, 4 Iowa 140; Goddard v. Cunningham, 6 Iowa 400; Gordon v. Pitt, 3 Iowa 390; Temple v. Kays,. Morris 9; Voleile v. Parker, Í6 Wend. 619. II. The defendant, Cassiday, being in possession of the note duly indorsed in blank, the said indorsement is presumed to have been made at the time the note was executed. Best on Ev. section 133, 181; Bayley on Bills, 86; Hendricks v. Judah, 1…
1Opinion of the Court
Lowe, C. J.1
Plaintiff, as indorsee, sues Anderson, maker, and Loughridge & Cassiday as indorsers on the following note:
$195. Winterset, Iowa, August 4th, 1856.
Two years after date I promise to pay Loughridge & Cassiday one hundred and ninety-five dollars, for value received, with ten per cent interest after due.
(Signed) Alexander S. Anderson.
(Indorsed) Loughridge & Cassiday.
Petition in usual form. The defendants Anderson and Cassiday were not served and did not appear. Loughridge alone defends, and answers in substance as follows: That the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition are untrue;…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pinkerton v. BaileyNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Kelly v. FordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- Smith v. SchanckNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Wilkinson, Stetson & Co. v. SargentSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859