Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kann v. Fish

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 2, 1929No. 39322Published

1DissentFayille, J.

I dissent. It is tbe well established rule in this state that, where the maker of a negotiable promissory note pays the same to the original payee, who is not at the time the owner of said note, and makes said payment without production and surrender of the note, he pays at his peril, unless he is able to establish that the party to whom the payment is made is the agent of the owner of the note, or that the creditor is estopped by reason of circumstances to deny such agency. We have had occasion quite recently to pass upon this question. See Shoemaker v. Minkler, 202 Iowa 942, and cases cited…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Shoemaker v. RaglandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  2. Shoemaker v. MinklerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  3. Ritter v. PlumbSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
  4. Huismann v. AlthoffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  5. Carr v. BenjaminSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928

3 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