McNitt v. Helm
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Tama District Court. Thursday, July 28. Action upon two promissory notes, one for $217.30, the other for $68.04, both elated December 6, 1852, payable to Fearer & Coffman, administrators, etc., or bearer, nine months after date, and signed by Phineas Helm and Alfred Helm. The plaintiff avei-red that no part of said notes had been paid, and the indebtedness still justly subsists ; and that he would prove the same by defendant’s answer and testimony in the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Tama District Court. Thursday, July 28. Action upon two promissory notes, one for $217.30, the other for $68.04, both elated December 6, 1852, payable to Fearer & Coffman, administrators, etc., or bearer, nine months after date, and signed by Phineas Helm and Alfred Helm. The plaintiff avei-red that no part of said notes had been paid, and the indebtedness still justly subsists ; and that he would prove the same by defendant’s answer and testimony in the case. Defense, statute of limitations. Trial to the court and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Cole, Ch. J.
The only question in this case is,whether the debt evidenced by the notes sued on “still justly subsists,” within the meaning of that phrase in our statute. *303Rev. § 2742. The notes themselves and the following testimony of the defendant is all the evidence in the case : “ I am the defendant; the signature of each of the notes purporting to be mine is my signature j I never paid the notes, and don’t know whether they were paid or not; I never received any benefit from the notes whatever ; they were given for property purchased at an administrators’ sale ; I bid off the property for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sykes v. BatesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
3Cited by1 opinion
- Collins v. BaneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872