Michaelson v. Schulke
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Ida District Cou-rt. — Frank M. Powers, Judge. Suit to recover upon a promissory note alleged to have been given for a commission. Defendant answered and set up a counterclaim for damages. He had the burden of proof in the trial court. At the close of the testimony adduced by him, the court sustained a motion to direct verdict against defendant. He appeals. —
1Opinion of the CourtSalinger, J.
„ .. Fraud : reliance on fraud, inspection folsentafions^ ef£ect I. The pell Jon alleges no that, about the 15th of May, 1911, defend-3 v 3 3 an^ ma<le and executed a promissory note to the plaintiffs, and judgment is prayed. The answer admits the execution of the note, but says that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover upon same, because it was given in payment of a commission to real estate brokers for making an exchange of a farm owned by defendant for another farm near Sutherland, Iowa, which said agree-*202meat was made in 1911, in the course of which transaction, the holders of the note…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Slaughter's Administrator v. GersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Laverty v. . SnethenNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hetland v. BilstadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Faust v. HosfordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Hegenmyer v. MarksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Canfield v. WithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1931
- Rembe v. FergusonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918