Murdock v. Arndt
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the District Court for Brown County. Assumpsit brought by Murdoch against Arndt to recover against Mm as indorser of a promissory note for seven hundred dollars, made by Jones, Clark & Co. to Arndt or order on demand, and by him indorsed to S. W. Murdock, who indorsed the same to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for Brown County. Assumpsit brought by Murdoch against Arndt to recover against Mm as indorser of a promissory note for seven hundred dollars, made by Jones, Clark & Co. to Arndt or order on demand, and by him indorsed to S. W. Murdock, who indorsed the same to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial, after the plaintiff had rested his case, the defendant called David Jones as a witness, and offered to prove that Arndt sold the note to B. W. Murdoch on the responsibility of Jones, Clark & Co., the makers. This offer was objected to, but…
1Opinion of the CourtIrvin, J.
On the trial of this cause the court charged the jury that the agreement made between John P. Arndt and his indorsee respecting his liability was obligatory upon his immediate indorsee, and all persons claiming under him. If the plaintiff in this case be a bona fide holder for a valuable consideration from the immediate indorsee of defendant, without notice of that agreement (which was a fact for the jury to determine), then the court erred. This the court by its charge took from the jury, and the judgment should be reversed.
There was no error in permitting David Jones to testify as a witness…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Richards v. NoyesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Eaton v. McMahonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877