Hausbrandt v. Hofler
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Floyd District Oourt. — Hon. C. H. Kelly, Judge. Action begun at law upon a promissory note. Defendants admit the execution of the instrument, but allege that it was intended for a receipt only, and not as an evidence of indebtedness, and ask to have it reformed accordingly. Upon trial in the district court, the relief asked for by defendants was granted, and plaintiff appeals.—
1Opinion of the Court
Weaver, J. —
*1041 *103The note sued upon bears date July 9,1895, and is made payable upon demand to one John Bottcher, father of the defendant Emma Holler. Some time in the year 1897, Bottcher demanded payment of the note, which was refused, and he thereafter transferred the instrument to plaintiff. The theory of the defense is that Bottcher fur*104nished the sum of $100 by way of advancement to his daughter Mrs. Hofler, and requested to be given some writing which would evidence that fact, and make his daughter chargeable-therewith in the distribution of his estate; that for such purpose the instrument…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lee v. PercivalSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Stafford v. FettersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Coots v. YewellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1894
- Brook v. LatimerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Ring v. AshworthSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Reggio v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Carman v. AthearnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Rentenbach Engineering Co., Construction Division v. General Realty Ltd.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985
- Peter v. PeterIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Southern Surety Co. v. United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.