Lynch v. Schemmel
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Kossuth District Court. — N. J. Lee, Judge. Action at law upon four promissory notes, aggregating $10,000. The answer admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that the same were due, and set up an affirmative defense thereto, which will be set forth in the body of the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Kossuth District Court. — N. J. Lee, Judge. Action at law upon four promissory notes, aggregating $10,000. The answer admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that the same were due, and set up an affirmative defense thereto, which will be set forth in the body of the opinion. The prayer of the answer asked that the plaintiff be enjoined from negotiating the notes to third parties, and that he be enjoined from bringing further suits thereon, and that he be ordered to surrender the notes, and that the same be canceled by the court. Upon the filing of such answer, the…
1DissentDeemer, J.
(dissenting). — The notes in suit were ordinary promissory ones, and were not secured, in any way. If they are nonnegotiable, it is because of this provision:
“And a failure to pay interest when due or in case of my removal or attempt to remove from the county in which I now reside shall cause this note to become due at the option of the holder thereof.”
The action was commenced before any of the notes had reached maturity, unless it be for the provision which I have quoted; so that the first question is: Were these notes rendered nonnegotiable by the insertion therein of this provision? *513Upon…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Taylor v. American National BankSupreme Court of Florida · 1912
- Merrill v. HurleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Des Moines Savings Bank v. ArthurSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Biermann v. Guaranty Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.