Conger v. Bean
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note executed to the plaintiff’s intestate, H. M. Conger, by the defendants James M. and Charles C. Bean, and James Patterson.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note executed to the plaintiff’s intestate, H. M. Conger, by the defendants James M. and Charles C. Bean, and James Patterson. After the defendant James M. Bean had answered, a stipulation was entered into between him and the plaintiff, whereby Bean withdrew his answer, and plaintiff was to have the right to take judgment against him for a certain amount, being less than the amount claimed, and less than the face of the note. Charles C. Bean, for answer, admitted the execution of the note, but -averred that he signed it as surety, and…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
1. ADMINISTRATOR : action by: evidence of party. I. Upon the tidal the deposition of James M. Bean was read in evidence by defendants. The plaintiff objected to its being read, upon the ground that the c. i. o action was being prosecuted by an administrator, ° x * ' and the testimony pertained to a personal transaction between the plaintiff’s intestate and the witness, and the witness was a party to the action. The admission of the deposition against the plaintiff’s objection is assigned as error.
If James M. Bean was a party to the action, within the meaning of the statute, section 3639 of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Ellis v. NewellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Barnes v. Century Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Clinton Savings Bank v. UnderhillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Frye v. GullionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Putney v. SchmidtNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.