Butler v. McCall
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Polk District Court. This action is against defendants as partners upon a partnership note. Sypher, who appeared in behalf of the firm, admitted the. execution of the note, and stated in his answer that the consideration therefor was two bills of merchandise purchased by defendants of plaintiffs, the aggregate amount of which was $950.81; that in giving the note for the amount supposed to be owing to plaintiffs, there was a mistake of about one hundred dollars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk District Court. This action is against defendants as partners upon a partnership note. Sypher, who appeared in behalf of the firm, admitted the. execution of the note, and stated in his answer that the consideration therefor was two bills of merchandise purchased by defendants of plaintiffs, the aggregate amount of which was $950.81; that in giving the note for the amount supposed to be owing to plaintiffs, there was a mistake of about one hundred dollars. The answer, therefore, denies that defendants are indebted to plaintiffs as claimed in their petition. After this answer…
1Dissent
Wright, J.,
dissenting.— The foregoing opinion is, as I think, in conflict with the principles and reasoning recognized and used in the case of Duncan v. Hobart et al., 8 Iowa, 337. "When the cause of action is admitted; when there is nothing to litigate, as shown by the defendants’ own pleadings; or when, as in this case, as stated in the majority opinion, there is such an admission of a portion of a demand as authorizes a judgment for such part, the law does not contemplate a right to a continuance. There was a reason for this statute. This was to give a defendant absent in the military…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Duncan v. HobartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859