Plano Manufacturing Co. v. Farrell
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Kossuth District Court. — IIon. W. B. Quarton, Judge. 1 Action for judgment upon a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant answered in four counts. In the first, he admits the execution of the-note, and alleges that the consideration therefor has wholly failed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Kossuth District Court. — IIon. W. B. Quarton, Judge. 1 Action for judgment upon a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant answered in four counts. In the first, he admits the execution of the-note, and alleges that the consideration therefor has wholly failed. In the second, he alleges, in substance, that the note-was given in renewal of two other notes for a harvester and binder purchased from plaintiff under a written warranty;, that the machine was not as warranted, and was of no value;. and that defendant kept it at the instance of the…
1Dissent
Deemee,-J.
(dissenting). — The expressed consideration for the note in -suit was the plaintiff’s promise to put the binder then held by the defendant in good working order ,before the harvest of 1894. That plaintiff did not comply with his promise is established by the uncontroverted evidence. The *583majority hold that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s failure, it is entitled to recover something on the note, because the defendant still lrolds the machine. This view overlooks the fact that the action is on the renewal notes that were given for a consideration expressed in the agreement of April 21st.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- J. A. Fay & Co. v. Jenks & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Beauford v. PattesonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1882
- Mecum v. Peoria & Oquawka RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
- White v. DaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1881