Legal Opinion

Michael v. Babbet

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided September 24, 1885PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Appanoose District Court. Action on a promissory note. Defense, usury. The plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.

This case comes before us on a finding of Tacts by the court. The finding is that the note at its incep *14tion was usurious, and that the defendant Jacob Babbet, after the execution of the note, upon a sufficient consideration, guarantied the same by writing thereon the following words: “ I hereby indorse the within note. Jacob Babbet.” The single question we are required to determine is whether Jacob Babbet can avail himself of such defense. As he was not a payee of the note, but a stranger thereto prior to writing his name thereon, he is, under the statute, a guarantor. Code, § 2089. The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Many v. Beekman Iron Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1841
  2. Austin v. FullerNew York Supreme Court · 1852
  3. Weimer v. SheltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1841
  4. Stockton v. ColemanIndiana Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. First National Bank v. DrakeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API