Bank of Montreal v. Ingerson
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Woodbury District Court. — Hon. George. W. Wakefield, Judge. Action at law to recover the -amount due on two promissory note®. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. —
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
— The plaintiff is a corporation of Canada, and is doing business in Chicago, in the state of Illinois. From the first part -of the year 1888, until June, 1893, it transacted business with the Union Stock Yards State Bank of Sioux City, by lending to- it from time to time money for which i.t gave to the plaintiff its certifieateis of deposit, .secured hy promissory notes, which it received in the course- of its business. The notes in suit were taken by it, and -sent to the plaintiff, as a part of the collateral security given on account of two certificates of deposit. The Sioux City bank…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Cheney v. LibbySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Hills v. . PlaceNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Wolcott v. Van SantvoordNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- British & American Mortgage Co. v. TibballsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Thomas R. Wood & Co. v. Merchants' Saving, Loan & Trust Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1866
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Leonard Watch Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Bartel v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- State National Bank v. HyattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Adler v. Interstate Trust & Banking Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1933
- Sioux City Cattle Loan Co. v. LovrienSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.