Hesser v. Doran
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Muscatine Circuit Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendant, to secure liis promissory note payable to plaintiff. There was a decree for plaintiff granting the relief claimed in the petition. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion. The mere possession of a promissory note, in the absence of indorsement or assignment, is prima facie evidence of ownership, and the holder may maintain an action thereon.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Muscatine Circuit Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendant, to secure liis promissory note payable to plaintiff. There was a decree for plaintiff granting the relief claimed in the petition. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion. The mere possession of a promissory note, in the absence of indorsement or assignment, is prima facie evidence of ownership, and the holder may maintain an action thereon. (Younker v. Martin, 18 Iowa, 143; Pilmer v. State Bank, 19 Id., 142; Ruby v. Culbertson, 35 Id., 264.) Where one of two innocent persons…
1Opinion of the Court
Beck, J. —
i promissofenceofownl ersiiip. I. The defense interposed to the foreclosure of the mortgage was payment made by the defendant to one Knoblock, who had possession of the note, and, T1Pon the payment to him, executed a satisfaction piece upon the record of the mortgage. The answer alleges that defendant paid the amount of the note to Knoblock in good faith, believing that he was the owner thereof, and had full authority to satisfy the mortgage. The evidence shows that Knoblock, at the time of payment, had the note and mortgage in his possession, but there is no other proof that he was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sully v. KuehlSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bigelow v. BurnhamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Sullivan v. GaulSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Meadowcraft v. WalshMontana Supreme Court · 1895