Farwell v. Tyler
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Johnson District Court. Plaintiff claims upon a promissory note, dated January 18, 1856, and due January 1, 1857. Defendant answers, denying the indebtedness as claimed — admits that he executed the promissory note declared on, but denies that it is the property of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Johnson District Court. Plaintiff claims upon a promissory note, dated January 18, 1856, and due January 1, 1857. Defendant answers, denying the indebtedness as claimed — admits that he executed the promissory note declared on, but denies that it is the property of plaintiff. He further sets up, that said defendant and one M. C. Farwell had been partners, and that this note was given for an amount found due said M. C. oú. settlement, when the said firm was dissolved; that it was made payable to the plaintiff, D. C. Farwell, at the request of said M. C. F., so that the same…
1Opinion of the CourtWeight, C. J.
The errors assigned are:
First. In excluding the testimony of the witness, Yogt.
Second. In taking from the jury, the testimony of Finkbine.
It is objected, that the testimony of Yogt was inadmissible, because there was no proof made, or offered to be made, that Farwell agreed, at the time of the settlement, that the defendant might or should pay the debts still owing by the firm, as averred in the answer. We think, however, that such averment and proof were unnecessary, to admit the evidence offered. As one of the firm of Far-well & Tyler, defendant was bound equally with, his partner, Farwell,…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Smith & Co. v. McLeanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Cottle v. ColeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Knadler v. SharpSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Searing v. BerrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Proctor v. BaldwinIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.