Bell v. Mahin
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lee District Court. The plaintiff in this action holds a promissory note signed by the defendants, W. II. Mahin and W. E. Petty, made payable one year from date, and providing for interest at tenjier cent from maturity, and for an attorney’s fee of ten per cent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee District Court. The plaintiff in this action holds a promissory note signed by the defendants, W. II. Mahin and W. E. Petty, made payable one year from date, and providing for interest at tenjier cent from maturity, and for an attorney’s fee of ten per cent. The plaintiff alleges that the note was to draw ten per cent interest from date, and that, by mistake, it was made to draw ten per cent interest only from maturity. lie therefore asks that the note be reformed so as to bear ten per cent interest from date, and that he have judgment upon the note so reformed. The defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, Oh. J.
soBviiote: Sunday,deiivday: validity.
*4102.-: material alteration: what is: surety. *409The first defense set up by Petty to the note is that it was executed upon Sunday. It seems to be undisjmted that the note was signed on Sunday, but it was not intended to be delivered on that day, and was not in fact delivered until Monday, j^romissory note becomes a contract at the time of its delivery. This contract, then, was made on Monday, and is not subject to the objection urged that it is a Sunday contract. As to the alteration, the fact appears to be that *410the note was drawn payable to J. II.…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Montgomery v. CrossthwaitSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- First State Bank ex rel. Oelke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Hodge v. Farmers' BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- State v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Builders Lime & Cement Co. v. WeimerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.