Hamilton v. Veach
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Clayton District Court. The record reveals tbe following state of case: One Brown gave bis note for $500, to James Mansfield; be indorsed tbe same to Yeacb and be to Hamilton. Hamilton, witb one Lown, guaranteed and transferred tbe note to H.-B. & E. S. Carters. Tbe Carters sue tbe maker, Brown, and all the intermediate indorsers and guarantors, and obtain judgment against each and all of them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clayton District Court. The record reveals tbe following state of case: One Brown gave bis note for $500, to James Mansfield; be indorsed tbe same to Yeacb and be to Hamilton. Hamilton, witb one Lown, guaranteed and transferred tbe note to H.-B. & E. S. Carters. Tbe Carters sue tbe maker, Brown, and all the intermediate indorsers and guarantors, and obtain judgment against each and all of them. Afterwards, by execution, levy and sale, they made a part of their judgment, namely, $400, out of tbe property of Hamilton. Hamilton brings this suit to recover the $400, with accruing…
1Opinion of the CourtLowe, J.
presump Ttest and°" notlce' It is a legal presumption, rightfully to be' indulged, that if the Carters, being the last holders of the PaPer; obtain judgment against all the parties to the note, that such as were entitled to notice of protest, in order to fix their liability, did receive the same, otherwise judgment would not have gone against them.
If, then, the defendant, Yeach, was legally affected with notice of protest in the suit of the Carters against him and others, it is a misconception of the rules of commercial law to hold that when he is sued by his immediate indorsee, that such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fahnestock v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
3Cited by1 opinion
- Devoy & Kuhn Coal & Coke Co. v. HuttigSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916