Stotts v. Fairfield
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Hamilton District Court. — Hon. Chas. E. Al-brook, Judge. Action to recover on a promissory note given for certain stock in the Stotts Signal Company, an Arizona corporation. Defense — that the note was obtained by fraud. Verdict and judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtGaynor, J.
Plaintiff brings this action upon a certain promissory note, dated April 25, 1910, executed and delivered by these defendants to one R. P. Dodge for $2,500, and claims that before the maturity of the note, Dodge indorsed and *728delivered the same to him for value. Defendants admit the execution of the note, but allege as defense thereto that there was fraud in the inception of the note constituting a complete defense thereto; that said note was obtained by false and fraudulent representations made by Dodge to these defendants; that the consideration of said note was 5;000 shares in what…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McNight v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Hubbard v. WeareSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Schneider v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Mattauch v. Walsh Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- First National Bank v. FultonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Redfield v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1959
- Connelly v. Greenfield Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- State v. BevinsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. ShafferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Farmers National Bank v. PrattSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.