Worthington v. Olden
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Buchano/n District Oowrt. Action upon a promissory note executed September 26, 1857, by a firm of which defendants and one D. S. Lee were partners. The note became due three months after its date. The petition alleges that, on the 17th day of February, 1859, plaintiff and defendants entered into a contract whereby the time of the payment of the note was extended one year from that date. The contract is set out in the petition.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchano/n District Oowrt. Action upon a promissory note executed September 26, 1857, by a firm of which defendants and one D. S. Lee were partners. The note became due three months after its date. The petition alleges that, on the 17th day of February, 1859, plaintiff and defendants entered into a contract whereby the time of the payment of the note was extended one year from that date. The contract is set out in the petition. Appellees in their answer aver that the contract for the extension of the note was executed by Lee, without their knowledge or consent, and after the…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
l. practice : Fnesfávori0of3 ruImgs beIow. — The motion for a new trial is based upon alleged errors in the rulings of the court upon the instructions, the failure of the jury to answer eer tain questions propounded to them, and the alleged conflict of the verdict with the evidence. It does not appear upon which of these grounds the new trial was ordered. The first and second grounds, in our opinión, are not supported by the record. We can not presume that, upon these, the verdict was set aside. We must exercise presumptions in favor of the correctness of. the ruling of the court. If there be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jourdan v. ReedSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chapman v. FieldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Holt v. DotySupreme Court of Iowa · 1922