Hiatt v. Tumlin

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It appears from the record that the receiver of the bank came into court with the mortgage-note executed by the defendant in favor of Kano Goff and duly endorsed by the latter. The plaintiff also introduced the renewal note dated March 3, 1928, and it appeared from the undisputed testimony of witness Hendry that this renewal note had been given in order to represent the unpaid balance due upon the original mortgage-note for the purpose of granting to the maker (the defendant in this case) an extension of time, and with the express understanding that the…