Merrillat v. Plummer
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Wapello District Gowrt. — Hon, T. M. Fee, J udge. Action at law upon a note. Defense, want of consideration and fraud. There was a directed verdict for the' plaintiff and judgment thereon. Defendants appeal.—
1Opinion of the CourtSherwin, J.
1 2
The defendants’ answer tendered the direct issues of fraudulent and false representations in the procurement of the note in suit, and want of consideration. The note was given for patent-right territory which was sold to the defendants by the plaintiff, acting as the agent of W. E. Eunson and A. Olson, to whom the note was made payable. The right sold was the use of a fence-building machine, of the merits of which the .defendants knew absolutely nothing. Upon the trial the defendants offered evidence to prove inducing statements made to them by the plaintiff as to the capacity of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. RallsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Prescott v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Hinsdale v. McCuneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907