Lake v. Cruikshank
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Lee Circmt Oowrt. Action at law by plaintiff as tbe holder, of a promissory note, made by tbe defendant “ to Alfred Ingalls or bearer, for $250, it being given for tbe profits on ten seeders.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Lee Circmt Oowrt. Action at law by plaintiff as tbe holder, of a promissory note, made by tbe defendant “ to Alfred Ingalls or bearer, for $250, it being given for tbe profits on ten seeders.” Answer in general denial, failure of consideration, etc.; also, denying that be ever signed tbe note sued on as a note; also, by way of cross action, sets up an equitable claim for tbe surrender of tbe note as having been procured by conspiracy and fraud by tbe payee, tbe plaintiff and others. Eeply in denial. Tbe cause was tried to tbe court, who found that defendant did not sign tbe note…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
— There is nothing to show that we have all tbe evidence before us which was introduced on tbe trial in tbe circuit court. We cannot, therefore, say that tbe *396finding by tbe court was contrary- to tbe evidence. But it is urged that since the defendant did not deny the execution of the note under oath, it was error to receive evidence tending to prove, and also error to find, that the defendant did not sign it.
The statute relied upon is chapter 28 -of the acts of the ninth general assembly (see laws of 1862, p. 30), which was enacted as a substitute for Revision, section 2967. “ When any…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sankey v. TrumpSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Douglass v. MathenySupreme Court of Iowa · 1872