Keater v. Hock
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Court. Action on a promissory note executed by Kubler & Hart-well to the defendants, and by them indorsed to the plaintiff. The petition averred that the plaintiffs “have used due diligence in the prosecution of a suit against the makers of said note, but that they have been and are still unable to collect the same, or any part thereof.” The defendants’ demurrer to the petition was sustained and judgment rendered for defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson District Court. Action on a promissory note executed by Kubler & Hart-well to the defendants, and by them indorsed to the plaintiff. The petition averred that the plaintiffs “have used due diligence in the prosecution of a suit against the makers of said note, but that they have been and are still unable to collect the same, or any part thereof.” The defendants’ demurrer to the petition was sustained and judgment rendered for defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. relied upon section 955 of the Code of 1851. contended that section 955 of the Code was repealed by section 3,…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Section 955 of the Code of 1851, provided that the indorser of a negotiable instrument was liable to the action of the indorsee, assignee, or payee without notice, ii the indorsee, assignee or payee had used due diligence in the institution and prosecution of a suit against the maker or his representative. By section 3, chapter 108, of the act of 1853, it is provided that grace shall be allowed upon bills and notes according to the principles of the law merchant, and notice of non-payment, or non-acceptance, or both, of said instruments shall be required according to the principles of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Keater v. Hock, Musser & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1864