Tappan v. Morseman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Court. Practice: new trial: authority op agents: payments TO AGENTS NOT IN POSSESSION OP THE EVIDENCE OF the debt, 40.— Action on note made by the defendant to Bowen, Holmes & Co., of New York, for $265.50. Defense, payment; jury trial; verdict for defendant, Plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtDillon, J.
1. Agent: payment to. There is but one question upon the record. Is the verdict so • clearly against the weight of evidence, as to require us to reverse the ruling of the court denying the plaintiff a new trial. With a few exceptions, the facts in the case are not disputed. The plaintiff stands in the shoes of the payees. An outline of the facts upon which the defendant relied to sustain his defense of payment may be thus given. Avery, one of the payees, was in Iowa, had the note with him, and ■endeavored to effect a settlement with the defendant, but did not. At that interview, according to…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Cummings v. HurdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Western Security Co. v. DouglassWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Parsons v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United WorkmenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Coulter v. Portland Trust Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Cogswell v. CannadySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.