Legal Opinion

Clanin v. Esterly Harvesting Machine Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1889No. 13,238PublishedCited by 21 opinions

From the Grant Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

Reuben Clanin executed his promissory note calling for the payment of $248.54 in twelve months after date to Samuel Clanin, with eight per cent, interest. The note was in the ordinary form, except that it contained on its face the following stipulation, viz.: “ This note is given to secure the payment of the Universalist Church debt.” The payee afterwards assigned the note to the Esterly Harvesting Company, and the latter brought this suit, alleging the execution and assignment of the note, and that it remained due- and wholly unpaid.

It is contended, in effect, that the stipulation above set…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. LaRose v. Logansport National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. ForsythIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Carr v. HaysIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Ward v. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Tucker v. TuckerIndiana Supreme Court · 1887

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Conant v. National State BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Shelling State Bank v. ClasenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  3. Hunter v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. Sparks.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1961
  5. Martineau v. HansonUtah Supreme Court · 1916

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API