Corbett v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Hardin District Court. — IIoN. John H. Henderson, Judge. Action upon a promissory note. The district court, on plaintiff’s motion, struck out the second and third divisions of the answer, on the ground that the matters pleaded constituted a counter-claim, and that the Same did not arise out of the contract set out in the petition, and constituted a cause of action in favor of defendant Rose alone.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hardin District Court. — IIoN. John H. Henderson, Judge. Action upon a promissory note. The district court, on plaintiff’s motion, struck out the second and third divisions of the answer, on the ground that the matters pleaded constituted a counter-claim, and that the Same did not arise out of the contract set out in the petition, and constituted a cause of action in favor of defendant Rose alone. The only question arising upon the appeal is as to the correctness of that ruling.
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
— It was alleged in the motion that defendant Hughes is the principal debtor on the note sued on, and that Rose is surety; and counsel for both parties have argued the cause on the assumption that the averment is true. We will consider the case, assuming that such is the relation of the defendants, although the fact is not shown by any averment of the pleadings, neither does it appear upon the face of the note.
1. Promissory note: plea of payment: what is not. I. The second division of the answer is as follows : “By way of counter-claim thereto, these defendants say that there has been paid on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reeves v. ChambersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Knaffle v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1913
- Imes v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1936