Central State Bank v. Spurlin
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Ilardin District Court. — Hon. D. R. Hind-man, Judge. Action at law upon a promissory note. Defenses, fraud, and want of consideration, and that plaintiff is not an innocent holder. There was a jury trial, and from a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appeals. — •
1Opinion of the CourtWaterman, J.
1 The note sued on is in the following form: “$250.00. Marshalltown, Iowa, May 27, 1896. Twelve months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to J. M. Fitzgerald, trustee, or order, two hundred and fifty dollars, payable at Marshalltown Bank, with interest at 6 per cent, per annum, payable annually, 6 per cent, on interest due, if action is commenced hereon, a reasonable attorney’s fees, and hereby consent that any justice of the peace may have jurisdiction on this note. [Signed] S. R. Spurlin.” The pivotal question to be determined is, was this note negotiable? When a conclusion is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lehman v. PressSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Binney v. PlumleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1833
- Downer v. ReadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Gordon v. AndersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1891
3Cited by5 opinions
- First National Bank v. DuttonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- Second National Bank v. ScanlonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- Long v. City Nat. Bank of CommerceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- German American National Bank v. KelleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Sample v. Hundred Lakes Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1932