Oswald & Co. v. Broderick & Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Lee District Court. ACTION ou a note. Plea — infancy on tbe part of Anderson, one of tbe defendants. Issue taken on plea and replication, alleging tbat at tbe time tbe note was given, and tbe goods furnisbed wbicb were tbe consideration thereof, tbe defendant was engaged in business as an adult, and plaintiff bad good reason to believe bim capable of contracting; and also, tbat tbe defendant bas not returned tbe money or property received by bim by virtue of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lee District Court. ACTION ou a note. Plea — infancy on tbe part of Anderson, one of tbe defendants. Issue taken on plea and replication, alleging tbat at tbe time tbe note was given, and tbe goods furnisbed wbicb were tbe consideration thereof, tbe defendant was engaged in business as an adult, and plaintiff bad good reason to believe bim capable of contracting; and also, tbat tbe defendant bas not returned tbe money or property received by bim by virtue of tbe contract. Be-joinder — that no part of the goods alleged to have passed as the consideration of the note, ever came…
1Opinion of the CourtIsbell, J.
On the part of the appellants, it is urged that so much of their replication as sets up that defendant was engaged in business as an adult, and that plaintiffs had good reason to believe him capable of contracting, remaining un-responded to, must be taken to be true, and that the court erred in finding against it. On the part of appellees, we understand it to be admitted, that this must be taken as true, but it is urged that this much of the replication tendered an immaterial issue; that the true interpretation of the statute is, that an infant may have, until he arrives at majority, and a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Beller v. MarchantSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- McClure v. IrwinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933