Bradshaw v. Hedge & Heaton
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Polk District Gourt. Action against Hedge. & Heaton as the makers, and W. H. Hervey as the indorser of a promissory note. Hervey filed his separate answer denying the indorsement, and also denying that he had been notified of a demand, and of non-payment by the maker thereof.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk District Gourt. Action against Hedge. & Heaton as the makers, and W. H. Hervey as the indorser of a promissory note. Hervey filed his separate answer denying the indorsement, and also denying that he had been notified of a demand, and of non-payment by the maker thereof. Upon the issue thus joined there was a trial by jury, and a verdict for tbe plaintiff for the amount of the note, whereupon the defendant, Hervey, moved the court to render judgment in his favor non obstante ver-edicto. This motion was sustained by the court and a judgment rendered accordingly. Plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Appellant insists that the verdict of the . jury was in accordance with the evidence, and that the court had no power or authority of law for entering a judgment *404for tbe defendant, upon a verdict of the jury for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff upon the trial in the District Court, to charge Hervey as indorser,'introduced in evidence the note sued on, signed by Iiervey as indorser, and the protest made,by the notary public who had presented the note for payment. It appears from this protest that the note had been duly presented at the banking house of Hedge & Heaton, the makers, and payment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stevens v. JudsonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by5 opinions
- Peabody Ins. v. Wilson & BeasleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Quimby v. BoydSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
- Wamsley v. RiversSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Shearer v. Guardian Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- David v. GilbertSupreme Court of Colorado · 1929