Woolsey v. Williams
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Keokuk Circuit Court Action upon the indorsement of a promissory note dated September 3, 1860, due January 1, 1861, executed by C. W. Nose, and payable to defendant, who indorsed the same to plaintiff. The petition alleges that the note was made and indorsed in the State of Illinois, where all the parties then resided.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Keokuk Circuit Court Action upon the indorsement of a promissory note dated September 3, 1860, due January 1, 1861, executed by C. W. Nose, and payable to defendant, who indorsed the same to plaintiff. The petition alleges that the note was made and indorsed in the State of Illinois, where all the parties then resided. It is further averred that plaintiff used due diligence to collect the note of the maker, by the institution of an action, in which a judgment was rendered on the 23d day of October, 1861, and that an execution issued thereon was returned “ no property found.” The…
1Opinion of the Court
Beck, Ch. J.
The judgment of the court below is based upon the facts of the insolvency of the maker of the note, and that a suit, at any time, would have been unavailing, which were found upon the evidence objected to by defendant. The court did not find that due diligence had been used in the prosecution of an action. The statute of Illinois provides that, if the suit would have been unavailing, or the maker of the note has absconded or left the State, recovery against the indorser may be had, as if the diligence required had been used.
In the petition, the plaintiff alleges the diligence in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lumbert & Co. v. PalmerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- Norwegian Plow Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Kern v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Hughes v. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926