Davis v. Payne & Shadduck
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Clinton District Court. Action upon a promissory note against the defendants as joint makers. Default was entered against the defendant, Payne, for want of a defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clinton District Court. Action upon a promissory note against the defendants as joint makers. Default was entered against the defendant, Payne, for want of a defense. Shadduck answered, setting up in substance that he was surety, and that there was an extension of time given by Davis to Payne, upon some consideration, without the knowledge of the surety, and thereby Shadduck was discharged; and that at or before the maturity of the note, Shadduck, as surety, requested Davis to sue said Payne on said note and to collect the money due thereon, and that said Davis refused to enforce…
1Opinion of the CourtRothrook, J.
I. We have carefully examined the evidence relied upon by appellant to show that there was an extension of time given for a consideration, without his knowledge or consent, and are of opinion that the court below correctly found for the plaintiff on that issue. There is a conflict in the evidence with, as we think, a preponderance against appellant. There being such conflict we could not disturb the finding of the court below under the rule so often announced here, even conceding the preponderance to be in appellant’s favor. II. It is insisted by counsel for appellant that as there was no…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shaw v. KendigSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Union National Bank v. CarrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878