Rindskoff, Bro. v. Malone
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lucas 'District Court. Defendants are the makers and indorsers of a negotiable promissory note. To charge the indorsers, plaintiffs offered in evidence the note and the protest of the notary, showing demand and notice as required by law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lucas 'District Court. Defendants are the makers and indorsers of a negotiable promissory note. To charge the indorsers, plaintiffs offered in evidence the note and the protest of the notary, showing demand and notice as required by law. “Which, (in the language of the bill of exceptions,) was the only evidence offered by either party, and the defendant objected to the introduction of said note and protest, which was overruled; the same was received by the court as evidence, and at the same time, defendant (Malone,) objected to judgment being rendered against him, and thereupon…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
The only question in the case is, whether the protest of the notary was, under the circumstances, disclosed by the record, properly received in evidence. The objection made to it now is, that it had no seal. That this was requisite we entertain no doubt. (Code, sections 244 82, 83.)
But is appellant in a position in this court to make this objection ? It will be observed that the record simply shows that he “objected to the introduction of said note and protest.” But why, or upon what ground, is not stated and no where appears. Neither was there any motion for a new trial, or any other step…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thompson v. BlanchardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. BradySupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Puth v. ZimblemanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- State v. DoeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- Schwartz v. Germania Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Ames Evening Times v. Ames Weekly TribuneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.