Hopkins v. Gray
| Decision Date | 09 June 1879 |
| Citation | 1 N.W. 637,51 Iowa 340 |
| Parties | A. T. HOPKINS, APPELLEE, v. DANIEL GRAY ET AL., APPELLANTS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Clinton circuit court.
On the fifth day of October, 1875, Hugh Taylor executed to the defendant, Daniel Gray, two promissory notes, each for the sum of four hundred dollars, one due on the first day of October, 1876, and the other due on the first day of January, 1877. The defendant Gray transferred this note by indorsement to plaintiff, waiving demand, notice and protest, and to secure the payment of the notes executed a mortgage to plaintiff upon certain real estate. The plaintiff prays judgment for the amount of the two notes, and for a foreclosure of the mortgage. For defense, the defendant Gray alleges that for a valuable consideration the plaintiff extended to Hugh Taylor the time of payment of the note which became due on the first day of October, 1876, to the first day of January, 1877; that in January, 1877, Hugh Taylor tendered to plaintiff two hundred and seventy dollars, in part payment of both notes, which plaintiff refused to accept, and that afterward Taylor offered to pay plaintiffs the interest on both notes, amounting to about eighty dollars, which plaintiff refused to accept.
The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the note which became due January 1, 1877. From this judgment the defendants appeal.
J. S. Darling, for the appellants.
A. R. Cotton, for the appellee.
--The evidence shows that, for a valuable consideration, the plaintiff granted Taylor an extension of time upon the note maturing October 1, 1876, to January 1, 1877. The evidence also shows that Taylor, in January, 1877, offered to pay plaintiff two hundred and seventy dollars on the note last due, on condition that plaintiff would take the defendant Gray for the balance, one hundred and thirty dollars, which offer the plaintiff declined, and that a few days thereafter Taylor offered to pay plaintiff a year's interest, eighty dollars, on the two notes, on consideration that he would extend the time of payment on the notes one year, which offer the plaintiff refused. These offers of payment being both coupled with conditions which the plaintiff had a right to refuse, his offers of payment constituted no defense to the notes. The extension of time to the maker of the notes was given to the note maturing October 1, 1876. The judgment from which the defendant appeals was rendered upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial