Hall v. Ætna Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Wwmesheih District Qov/rt. The petition averred, that, on the 20th day of July, 1867, the defendants, by their agent, O. H. Oleson, procured from plaintiff two promissory notes for $95 each. That defendants obtained said notes in consideration of an ¿Etna reaper and mower, delivered by them to plaintiff. That on the sale and delivery of said machine, the defendants, by printed warranty, warranted the same to cut one acre of grain or grass per hour.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wwmesheih District Qov/rt. The petition averred, that, on the 20th day of July, 1867, the defendants, by their agent, O. H. Oleson, procured from plaintiff two promissory notes for $95 each. That defendants obtained said notes in consideration of an ¿Etna reaper and mower, delivered by them to plaintiff. That on the sale and delivery of said machine, the defendants, by printed warranty, warranted the same to cut one acre of grain or grass per hour. Copies of the notes are annexed to and made part of the petition, and it is alleged that one bears the following indorsement, viz.: “…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
l. pleading: turef onu£na" I. At the trial the copies of the notes annexed to the petition were read in evidence with the indorsement thereon, without objection. 'Plaintiff then ofered in evidence the judgments and petitions of Hampson v. Sail and Brooks v. Hall, in actions on the two notes. To the introduction of this evidence the defendant objected, on the ground that “it is not shown that the, notes were transferred by defendants, nor their indorsements thereof proved, nor are they in any manner connected with the judgments; and the testimony offered is immaterial and irrelevant.” The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Crawford v. BurtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
3Cited by4 opinions
- Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. BarlowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Douglass v. MathenySupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Sully v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Smith v. GoldbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909