Legal Opinion

Iowa State Bank v. Frankle

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 4, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Polh District Court. — James C. Hume, Judge. Aotion at law, to recover tbe amount due on two promissory notes. Tbe opinion states tbe facts. From a judgment on a directed verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. —

1Opinion of the CourtVermilion, J.

Tbe action is at law, for tbe recovery of tbe amount due on two promissory notes given by tbe defendant and appellant. Tbe answer admits tbe execution of tbe notes, and alleges that tbey were given to tbe plaintiff and appellee as part of tbe consideration for ten shares of tbe capital stock of tbe appellee bank; that appellant was induced to purchase tbe stock by false and fraudulent representations on tbe part of E. H. Hunter, president of tbe bank, as to tbe financial condition of tbe bank and tbe dividends theretofore paid upon its stock. By a counterclaim, appellant seeks to recover tbe…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miller v. F. Beck & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1899
  2. Metz v. SouleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
  3. Snyder v. Mutual Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907
  4. McDonald v. NugenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bolton v. ZieglerDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1953
  2. Farmers Savings Bank v. FriarSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
  3. Faber v. Van ZylSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API