Commercial Security Co. v. Jack
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Grand. Eorks County; O. M. Cooley, J. From a judgment ordered non obstante veredicto in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Grand. Eorks County; O. M. Cooley, J. From a judgment ordered non obstante veredicto in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals. In a suit on a promissory note, a verdict should not be directed for tbe bolder, unless the evidence is such that fairminded men can draw only one inference therefrom, and may not be directed where the evidence is uncontroverted, if the inferences to be drawn from the circumstances are open to different conclusions by reasonable men. Arnd v. Aylesworth, 145 Iowa, 185, 29 L.P.A.(N.S.) 638, 123 N. W. 1000. Where there is an issue as to the…
1Opinion of the CourtFisk, J.
Plaintiff and respondent, a foreign corporation, brought this action to recover upon a negotiable promissory note for $350, executed and delivered by defendant and appellant to the American Manufacturing Company, and indorsed by it to plaintiff. The complaint is in the usual form, alleging the corporate existence of plaintiff, the execution and delivery of the note as aforesaid, and the transfer thereof by indorsement to plaintiff for value and before maturity. Ry his answer defendant expressly admits the allegations as to the corporate existence of plaintiff, the execution and delivery of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Becker v. CainNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schantz v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1919
- State v. Columbus Hall Asso.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1947
- Embden State Bank v. SchulzeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1923
- First National Bank v. CareySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Taylor & Co. v. Nehi Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.