Hess v. Wilcox
| Decision Date | 06 June 1882 |
| Citation | 10 N.W. 847,58 Iowa 380 |
| Parties | HESS v. WILCOX ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.
THE plaintiff commenced this action upon two promissory notes purporting to be executed by William and Isaac Wilcox to George A. Wilcox, and by him indorsed in blank. The defendants answered under oath, each denying that he ever signed, or authorized any one for him to sign, or that he ever sanctioned or ratified the signing of the notes set out in the petition. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $ 770.85. The defendants appeal.
REVERSED.
J. B Young, for the appellants.
J. D Griffin and Wm. G. Thompson, for the appellee.
The defendants assign as error the admitting in evidence of two letters, as follows:
The evidence shows that the second letter was written in response to the first, and that the note referred to therein is neither of the notes now in controversy. George A. Wilcox is the brother of William, and the son of Isaac Wilcox. William Wilcox testified, in substance, that he was in partnership with George in mercantile business; that he bought out George's interest, and executed therefor four notes, aggregating $ 800, which were also signed by his father, Isaac Wilcox; and that these four notes were the only notes which he ever executed for George's interest in the store. This witness further testified that the First National Bank of Marion held two notes purporting to be executed to George Wilcox by William and Isaac Wilcox; that they never executed these notes, but that to prevent the exposure of George, he agreed to acknowledge the notes as his own, and he, and Isaac Wilcox, agreed to pay them, which they subsequently did, in consideration of which George Wilcox surrendered the four notes given for his interest in the store. Upon the other hand, George Wilcox testified that he sold his interest in the store for $ 1,800, and that the notes sued upon, as well as the notes held by The First National Bank, were executed by the defendants in part payment. This witness denies the surrender of any of the notes in consideration of the defendants assuming the two notes held by the bank. Now, it is evident that the letter written by William Wilcox has some tendency to contradict his testimony that he never executed but four notes to George, and to corroborate the testimony of George. It is claimed that the letter is inadmissible in view of the explanation made by William Wilcox of the circumstances under which he acknowledged the note to be his. But, as the evidence was conflicting, it was for the jury to say, in view of all the evidence, whether his explanation was credible. The first letter was merely explanatory of, and introductory to, the second. In admitting them, we think, the court did not err.
II. The defendant, Isaac Wilcox, testified to going to the bank and looking at the notes held by it, and informing R. D. Stephens that he had never seen them before. R. D. Stephens was introduced as a witness and testified that at the time referred to by Isaac Wilcox, he said emphatically that he never signed the notes. The witness further testified "I told him that I did not think that he could ever make it win; that I thought that the signature was genuine." The defendant moved to strike out the portion of this testimony indicated in italics, and assigned the...
To continue reading
Request your trial