Gregory v. Pierce
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Gourt. — Tuos. Arthur, Judge. ■ Action at la>v to recover on a promissory note. The petition was in two counts. At the .close of the testimony, the court sustained defendant’s motion for a directed verdict as to the first count, and submitted to the jury the issues raised by the second count. There was a disagreement of the jury as to this. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as to the first count was sustained, .and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
The second count of the petition sought to recover because of a promise by defendant, subsequent to his discharge in bankruptcy. It is conceded by both sides that this appeal does not involve any matter in regard to the second count, because, the jury having disagreed, that count is left for retrial.
Going now to the first count: The note in suit is for |2,500, executed November 27, 1907, and signed by defendant, Harry F. Pierce, and by William Barker. In consideration of said note, plaintiff conveyed to Barker 80 acres of land, then owned by plaintiff. By the first count of the petition,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Neal v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Strang v. BradnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. McElroyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- Forsyth v. VehmeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Bullis v. O'BeirneSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hart v. StenceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
- Kessel v. HuntSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Manders v. DallamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Hills Savings Bank v. CressSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Beneficial Finance Co. of Michigan v. Lambert (In Re Lambert)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.