Traders Bank v. Alsop
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Delaware District Court. Action on a promissory note executed by defendant, and payable to Low Bros. & Co., and by them indorsed to plaintiff. Defendant aswered that the consideration of the note was money lost on a gambling contract. A demurrer to this answer was sustained, and, defendant refusing to plead further, judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the note, and he appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
1. dbmuekek: musthespe-' 0lñc-I. The allegation of the answer is “that the consideration of the note sued on was money lost on a gambling contract.” It contains no statement of the facts the transaction in which the note was given, ' and the point is made by counsel for appellee that the allegation is but the statement of a mere legal conclusion, and that the demurrer was properly sustained for that reason. The ground of the demurrer is that “the fact that the note was given for money lost on a gambling contract is no defense to the note in the hands of- the plaintiff, a tona fide holder…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vallett v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Dillon v. AllenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Bridge v.HubbardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pope v. HankeIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Drinkall v. Movius State BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Stokes v. SpragueSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Arnd v. SjoblomWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- First National Bank v. CarrollSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.