Legal Opinion

De Pauw v. Bank of Salem

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 11, 1890No. 14,487PublishedCited by 13 opinions

From the Washington Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

— The decision in this case depends upon the conclusions of law to be drawn from the following facts: In April, 1884, Andrew J. McIntosh executed a promissory note for $1,500 to the Bank of Salem, Indiana, the bank being named therein as payee. The note was negotiated and payable at the Bank of Salem, Indiana, and was given as a second renewal of a note similarly signed, which had been executed in consideration of money loaned to Andrew J. McIntosh. The name of Newland T. Be Pauw was endorsed on the back of the note before it was delivered by McIntosh, the latter having signed on the face as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Good v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Kealing v. VansickleIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Moorman v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Pool v. AndersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Wells v. JacksonIndiana Supreme Court · 1841

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hodge v. Farmers' BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Reddick v. YoungIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Pope v. Branch County Savings BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
  4. Pape v. RandallIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
  5. Thompson v. DivineIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API