Sandusky Machine & Agricultural Works v. Hooks
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Harrison District Gowrt. — Hon. O. H. Lewis, Judge. This is an action upon a promissory note. There was a judgment on a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, C. J.
i. agency: evidence. I. The answer of the defendants to the plaintiff’s petition alleges that the note was given for a cornsheller purchased by defendants fr0m the plaintiff through one Luce, acting as the plaintiff’s agent; that Luce warranted the machine to do good work, and that it would operate well with a certain horse-power owned by the defendant; that the shelter did not comply with the terms of the warranty; and that the defendants paid the note to Luce, who was at the time of payment the agent of the plaintiff. Other allegations of the answer need not be here recited. The cause was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Eadie, Guilford & Co. v. AshbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Farrar v. PetersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Garland v. WholebauSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
3Cited by2 opinions
- Aultman & Taylor Co. v. GundersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Mendenhall v. KallemSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921