Legal Opinion
Day v. Ramsdell
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided May 19, 1892PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Appeal from Tama District Court. — Hon. J. H. Pees-ton, Judge. Action upon a promissory note. There was a demurrer to the petition, which was overruled, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtRotheock, J.
The note upon which the action was brought is in these words:
“$500. Tama City, April 20, 1885.
“One year after date we, the Tama Paper Company, promise to pay to the order of H. Day, administrator, five hundred dollars, at Tama City, Iowa, value received, with interest at eight per cent.
[Signed.] “John Ramsdell, Pres.
“H. E. Ramsdell, Sec.”
The demurrer was to the effect that no action could he maintained on .said note against the defendants, because it appears from the petition that the *732note sued upon is not the personal obligation of these defendants, but is the personal obligation of the Tama…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lewis v. TiltonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Heffner v. BrownellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Wing v. GlickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Revolving Scraper Co. v. TuttleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- American Ins. v. StrattonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wallace v. Fraternal Mystic CircleMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Capital Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Consumers Twine & Machinery Co. v. Mount Pleasant Thermo Tank Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- Denman v. BrennamenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- G. E. Conkey Co. v. BochmannDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.