Sully v. Goldsmith
Supreme Court of Iowa
Ajrpeal from Henry District Gov/rt. Action in ordinary, upon a negotiable promissory note made by defendant to Cory & Stone, and by -them indorsed to plaintiff. The defendant, by his answer, denies the execution of the note, and avers that it was obtained by fraud, and that plaintiff took the same with knowledge of its fraudulent existence. There was a trial to a jury; verdict for defendant, and judgment accordingly. The plaintiff- appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
Neither party objected to the evidence introduced, nor were there any exceptions to the instructions given by the court to the jury. The sole question made by appellant is, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the instructions of the court. The testimony of the defendant himself sufficiently establishes the fact that the signature to the note sued on is the genuine signature of the defendant. As respects the issue tendered by the answer, that the note was obtained by fraud, it may safely be said that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict by the jury, that it was so…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Green v. WilkieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Lay v. WissmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Sully v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Piper v. NeylonNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
- Danford v. WinterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1951