Grimstead v. Briggs
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Davis District Court. Johnson & Briggs made tbeir promissory note to one Berger, wbo indorsed tbe same to plaintiff. Tbe makers and indorser being sued, Johnson not being served, tbe material question in the case, arose upon the liability of defendant Briggs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Davis District Court. Johnson & Briggs made tbeir promissory note to one Berger, wbo indorsed tbe same to plaintiff. Tbe makers and indorser being sued, Johnson not being served, tbe material question in the case, arose upon the liability of defendant Briggs. The cause was submitted to the court, and the facts found as follows: The note was made on the 29th of July, 1856, and was due on the first day of the next November, but at the time of its execution, did not contain the words, “ with ten per cent, interest,” which words were inserted after its execution, but by whom,…
1Opinion of the CourtWeight, C. J.
We see no good reason for disturbing this’judgment. From the facts found, we think the court below was fully justified in concluding, that the defendant Briggs, either assented to said alteration at the time it was made, or if not, that having advised the plaintiff, to purchase the same, after, as is fairly inferable, he knew of said alteration, he is estopped, as against said plaintiff, from insisting upon the same, as a defence in this action. If the altera*561tion was made with his knowledge and consent, the note would not, as assumed by appellant, become void, by reason of such addition or…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Montgomery v. CrossthwaitSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Matson v. JarvisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Phillips v. W. A. Crips & BrotherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Pelton v. PrescottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1862
- Continental Casualty Co. v. BradburyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.