Legal Opinion

Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Tooley

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 18, 1923No. 11,601PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcMahan, J.

June 24, 1912, appellee executed a series of six non-negotiable promissory notes payable to the Geiser Manufacturing Company, hereafter referred to as the Geiser Company, identical in form except as to the amount and date of payment. All these notes were secured by a chattel mortgage on certain threshing machinery and were assigned to appellant. Two of these notes were paid by sale of the mortgaged property, and this is an action by appellant on the other four notes. The complaint is in four paragraphs, each in the usual form of an action upon a promissory note.

*463Appellee filed answer in seven…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Burt v. BowlesIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Todd v. BettingenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  3. Jarboe v. SeverinIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Dill v. O'FerrellIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Hartman v. RinggenbergIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Keenan Hotel Co. v. FunkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Henning v. NeiszIndiana Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Dailey v. EhserIndiana Court of Appeals · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API