Rodabaugh v. Pitkin
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Yam Burén Circuit Court. Plaintiff was the payee and holder of a negotiable promissory note made by one J. W. Peabody. The name of the appellant was written on the back of said note. The plaintiff commenced this suit against appellant and one Huffman, whose name was also indorsed on said note. The original petition charges the defendants as. guarantors. An amended petition charges defendants as makers of the note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Yam Burén Circuit Court. Plaintiff was the payee and holder of a negotiable promissory note made by one J. W. Peabody. The name of the appellant was written on the back of said note. The plaintiff commenced this suit against appellant and one Huffman, whose name was also indorsed on said note. The original petition charges the defendants as. guarantors. An amended petition charges defendants as makers of the note. The defendants answered in substance that Peabody, who was the principal debtor, and the maker of the note, absconded before the note became due, leaving property in…
1Opinion of the CourtRothrock, J.
i. promisguarantor: ' tice. . I. .The appellant’s blank indorsement of the note made him liable as a guarantor of the performance of the contract. . Code, Sec. 2089. Peabody, the maker, absconded before the note became due. No demand of payment was made upon him when the note became due, and the facts.abundantly show that the guar-.' *546antors received no detriment from the want of notice of nonpayment. If they did not receive detriment they are chargeable without notice. Code, Sec. 2090.
II. The guarantors instituted a suit in attachment against the maker, after he had absconded and before the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- German Savings Bank v. Drake Roofing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. MillsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Claflin v. ReeseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880