Hollenbeck v. Stanberry
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Cerro Gordo Cirowit Court. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are attorneys at law, and that he delivered to them for collection a note on J. IT. Yalentine for $270, and interest; that they agreed to collect and remit the same to plaintiff; that they have collected .$300 thereon and have failed to remitas agreed, and judgment is asked therefor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cerro Gordo Cirowit Court. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are attorneys at law, and that he delivered to them for collection a note on J. IT. Yalentine for $270, and interest; that they agreed to collect and remit the same to plaintiff; that they have collected .$300 thereon and have failed to remitas agreed, and judgment is asked therefor. The defendants admit the receipt of the note; that they presented it to the maker for payment, and he was not able to pay the same: that shortly afterwards'they •obtained from said maker certain goods, wares and merchan■dise valued…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
— I. At the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence the receipt for collection, executed by defendants to the plaintiff, which contained also a copy of the note in question, and rested.
The defendants then admitted that they received the goods, etc., in payment, and gave up the note to Yalentine the maker. One of defendants then testified that “shortly after the receipt of the goods * * * Yalentine was adjudged a bankrupt; that defendants were sued in the United States District Court, and a judgment was rendered against them for one hundred and fifty dollars debt, and forty-two dollars and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. SempleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
3Cited by4 opinions
- Shaffer v. McCrackinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Urquhart v. BelloniOregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Douglas v. CorryOhio Supreme Court · 1889
- Jackson v. Nelsonville Foundry & Machine Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1916