Stout v. Marshall
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Dallas District Court. — Hóh. A. W. Wilkinson, Judge. ActjqN upon a promissory note. The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
— I. Among other defenses the defendant pleaded that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff alleges in his petition that the cause of action on the note is revived by a written admission that it is unpaid, and a new promise to pay it. The writing relied upon is in these words: “Dan Stout — Dear Sir: Ira Smith is here, and spoke to me in regard to our settlement of those old notes. I have no money now, but you shall have every cent that is due on them. C. Marshall.” The district court held that this is not sufficient to take the cause of action out of the operation…
2Cited by8 opinions
- First National Bank of Sigourney v. WoodmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Doran v. DoranSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Kleis v. McGrathSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- McConaughy v. WilseySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Miller v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.