Easton v. Strother & Conklin
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. Action to recover an alleged balance upon a promissory note. The petition avers that the note was executed by the defendants, Strother & Conklin, to the defendants, Day Bros., and indorsed by them to the plaintiff; that it was made May 10, 1877; that it was drawn for $1,100, and bears ten per cent interest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. Action to recover an alleged balance upon a promissory note. The petition avers that the note was executed by the defendants, Strother & Conklin, to the defendants, Day Bros., and indorsed by them to the plaintiff; that it was made May 10, 1877; that it was drawn for $1,100, and bears ten per cent interest. The petition admits a payment of $1,175, as made December 20, 1878. The defendants, Strother & Conklin, for answer, aver that the note was purchased December 20, 1878, by W. Strother, a member of their firm for $1,175, and was delivered to him, and that he…
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, Ch. J.
i kbomissoaga?n°s?paitohale^y5111" partner. I. The first question raised is as to the sufficiency of the count of Strother & Conklin’s answer setting UP a pujase of the note by Strother. It was Strother’s duty to take up the note for the firm by payment or compromise as best he could. The amount paid by him became a charge in his favor against the firm. This was all that he was entitled to. He could not by purchase become the owner of a note against the firm. The rule contended for by the appellants would afford a direct temptation to partners to attempt to evade their duty in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ristine v. RumlSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Deavenport v. Green River Dep. BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910