Diehl v. McKinnon
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Cedar Rapids Superior Court'. — C. B. Robbins, Judge. Action at law upon a promissory note. Defendant admitted the execution of the note, denied the transfer thereof by the original payee, Amos Diehl, to the plaintiff, pleaded the mental incompetency ^ of the payee to make a transfer of the note, alleged that the transfer was without consideration, and further pleaded a release, settlement and discharge of tbe note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cedar Rapids Superior Court'. — C. B. Robbins, Judge. Action at law upon a promissory note. Defendant admitted the execution of the note, denied the transfer thereof by the original payee, Amos Diehl, to the plaintiff, pleaded the mental incompetency ^ of the payee to make a transfer of the note, alleged that the transfer was without consideration, and further pleaded a release, settlement and discharge of tbe note. The issue of settlement and release was taken away from the jury and the case was submitted on the other affirmative issues, resulting in a verdict for defendant. Both…
1Opinion of the CourtDeemer, C. J.
Contracts: consideration: promise to perform legal obligation: part satisfaction of whole. The note in suit is an ordinary negotiable promissory one for the sum of $800, made July 15, 1904, and maturing one year after date. It bore interest at the rate of 6%, payable annually, with interest on interest. Payments of interest were entered thereon as follows: $48 on the 1st day of * in the years 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908, respectively, and “interest paid to July 1, 1909, interest paid to July 1, 1910”. It was also endorsed, “Pay to Hamilton Diehl, Amos Diehl, his signature, His Witnesses Dura B.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Herman v. SchlesingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. KnowltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Young v. PowerMississippi Supreme Court · 1866
- Dreyfus v. RobertsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Williams v. BlumenthalWashington Supreme Court · 1901
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marysville Development Co. v. HargisIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Brock v. LuethNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
- Brack v. BrackSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Yin v. Amino Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943