Hoyt v. Quint
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Carroll District Court. — Hon. Z. A. Church, Judge. Action on the guaranty of a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. —
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
— The petition, filed August 12, 1896, alleges that J. M. and Lulu Boyce executed their promissory note, August 13, 1893, to S. A. Hoyt, for the sum of three hundred and sixty-eight dollar's and eight-four cents, payable one year after date, and that defendant guaranteed the payment thereof in these words indorsed on the back thereof: “I guaranty payment. Demand, protest, and notice of protest waived. A. U. Quint.” In his answer, filed April 3, 1897, the defendant averred that nearly two years before the beginning of this suit he requested the agent of plaintiff to collect the note of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reynolds v. DouglassSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Allen v. RightmereNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Hungerford v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- W. S. Bloom & Co. v. Warder, Mitchell & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1882
- Second National Bank v. GaylordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fegley v. JenningsSupreme Court of Florida · 1902
- Miller v. Lewiston National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
- Condit v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Masters v. BoyesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Schaffer v. AcklinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.