Closz & Mickelson v. Miracle
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Hamilton District Court. — Hon. D. E. Hindman, Judge. Cy and Katie Ashpole executed to James Miracle their note of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, dated March 31, 1893, payable September 15 of the same year. About June 27, 1893, Miracle sold this note to the plaintiff, indorsing it in blank. The petition alleges that Miracle orally guarantied payment of the note when he sold it, and also seeks to hold him as indorser.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hamilton District Court. — Hon. D. E. Hindman, Judge. Cy and Katie Ashpole executed to James Miracle their note of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, dated March 31, 1893, payable September 15 of the same year. About June 27, 1893, Miracle sold this note to the plaintiff, indorsing it in blank. The petition alleges that Miracle orally guarantied payment of the note when he sold it, and also seeks to hold him as indorser. The answer denies tírese allegations, and avers that it was agreed the indorsement was to be without recourse. Trial to jury. ' Verdict and judgment for…
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
*200 1
2 *199The indorsee and the makers of the note lived in the same neighborhood, and no excuse appears in the record for the failure to present the *200nóte and demand payment personally or at the residence or place of business of the makers. The statute permits notice by mail to the indorsers, but the law merchant controls with respect to presentment and demand. Code 1873, section 2095. In this case the indorsee, OLosz & Mickelson, mailed letters to the makers, Oy Ashpole, and Katie Ashpole, some time before the day the note matured, demanding payment. Oy Ashpole called upon the indorsee, and stated…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lumbert & Co. v. PalmerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Freeman v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Graul v. StrutzelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Hughes v. BowenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
- Blake v. McMillenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Witte v. BrozNebraska Supreme Court · 1923