Hunt v. Postlewait
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from General Term, First District, Des Moi/nes County. Action on a note executed by Peter Hertz and W. H. Postlewait; tbe latter signed the note “ as surety ” for the former, and those words were annexed to his signature. This suit is brought against Postlewait alone, the principal maker being a non-resident.
Read the full summary
Appeal from General Term, First District, Des Moi/nes County. Action on a note executed by Peter Hertz and W. H. Postlewait; tbe latter signed the note “ as surety ” for the former, and those words were annexed to his signature. This suit is brought against Postlewait alone, the principal maker being a non-resident. The defense is that he was only surety, and the plaintiff had, by contract, extended the time of payment to the principal without his consent, and the principal is now insolvent. Trial to a jury; verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the General Term, where the…
1Opinion of the Court
Cole, Oh. J.
Upon this record and the assignment of errors, there are substantially but two points for our decision: First, as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The only testimony introduced by defendant was the deposition of the principal maker of the note; and the statement on oath of the defendant, that he was only surety and had no knowledge of and gave no consent to any agreement for extension of time for payment. The substance of Peter Hertz’s testimony is found in the following extracts from his deposition:
*429“ Ink í. When said note became due, was the time of payment extended ?
“ Ans.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Jenness v. CutlerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Abel v. AlexanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Runkle v. KetteringSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Davis v. GrahamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Lahn v. KoepSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.