Hensler v. Watts
Supreme Court of Iowa
'Appeal from Polk District Oourt.- — Hon. W. E. Conrad, Judge. Action on a promissory note executed by Phillips, as principal, and the defendant, as surety, January 25, 1896, payable “on or before one year after date.” Defense: Extension of time one year by the maker without the surety’s consent. Verdict was directed and judgment entered thereon against the defendant, who appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
The evidence tended to show plaintiff’s agent admitted, about one year and three months after the maturity of the note, that, at the principal’s request, and- without *742the consent of the surety, he had extended the note one year, indorsing thereon, “Time extended to January 25, 1898.” No consideration whatever seems to have passed from the principal maker — not even a promise to pay interest on the money for any definite time. The appellant, however, insists that a promise to pay interest during the period of the extension should be implied from the request therefor, and that when so brought…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Benson v. PhippsTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Nelson v. FlaggWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Hunt v. PostlewaitSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Byers v. HarrisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Goodman Manufacturing Co. v. Mammoth Vein Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Runkle v. KetteringSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Lahn v. KoepSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Heaton v. MyersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.