Young v. Mumma
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Polk District Court. Suit on two promissory notes for $357.50 each, dated December 31st, 1852, and payable with interest, one and two years after date, purporting to have been made by defendant to one William Young, and assigned to plaintiff, January 3d, 1856. The answer of defendant is a general denial of the plaintiff’s petition, under oath, on which issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Polk District Court. Suit on two promissory notes for $357.50 each, dated December 31st, 1852, and payable with interest, one and two years after date, purporting to have been made by defendant to one William Young, and assigned to plaintiff, January 3d, 1856. The answer of defendant is a general denial of the plaintiff’s petition, under oath, on which issue was joined. There was afterwards filed a supplemental aDswer of defendant, under oath, denying the execution of the notes, and averring that said William Young, the assignor of plaintiff, by fraud and misrepresentation,…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
The first answer of defendant denies the execution of the promissory notes sued on ; that defendant ever authorized any one to execute them for him; that they have been assigned to plaintiff; and denies generally being in any manner indebted„to plaintiff. On this answer, there was issue joined by plaintiff; the defendant afterwards filed an amended or supplemental answer, not waiving his first answer, in which he alleges affirmative facts as a defence to plaintiff’s action, and the same being sworn to, he requires the plaintiff to reply thereto under oath, as allowed by section 1744 of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Teagarden v. BakerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859