Legal Opinion
Commercial State Bank v. Iverson
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided February 24, 1926No. File No. 5505PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Plaintiff brought action in the usual form as indorsee and holder in due course of a promissory note in the principal sum of $100 executed by defendant to^ Young & Engelhard Creamery Company, a corporation.- Defendant ariswered that plaintiff was not a due course holder of the note; that the'note was given for corporate stock of the Young & Engelhard Cream-' ery Company, and was secured by false representations; that said corporate stock was never delivered; that the corporation is now insolvent and bankrupt; and that the consideration for the note had wholly failed.
*468The case was tried oil the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Swedish American National Bank of Minneapolis v. KoebernickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Merchants' National Bank v. Citizens' Gas Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Merrill v. HurleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Winer v. Bank of BlythevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Iowa Nat. Bank v. ShermanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bear Butte Valley BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
- Farmers and Merchants State Bank v. MannSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
- General Tire & Rubber Co. v. HammSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
- Livestock National Bank v. Minnehaha State BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
- Farmers and Merchants State Bank v. MannSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.