Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. Barkley
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, .Clark County. Hon. GkORGS H. Marquis, Judge. Action by the Acme Harvesting Machine Company against William Barkley. From a judgment in part for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtWhiting, J.
This action is one brought upon a promissory note given as the consideration, or part consideration, upon the purchase of a harvesting machine commonly known as a “push” or “header” binder. The complaint is in the ordinary form, and alleges the giving of the note to the Acme Harvester Company and the assigning of said note by said company to the plaintiff and its nonpayment. The answer admits the giving of the note and its nonpayment, and by way of defense, alleges that this note was given to the payee thereof for a push binder; further alleges that upon said sale the said payee of said note…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Springfield Engine & Thresher Co. v. KennedyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Peter v. Plano Mfg. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rickards v. Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1922
- J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. GidleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Sheafe v. ZastrowSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Spaulding v. PittsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910