Manhard v. First Nat. Bank of Waterloo
| Decision Date | 26 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 31779.,31779. |
| Citation | 165 N.W. 185 |
| Parties | MANHARD v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WATERLOO ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Black Hawk County; G. W. Dunham, Judge.
Action in replevin for the possession of a promissory note resulted in judgment as prayed. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.J. T. Sullivan, of Waterloo, for appellant.
Edwards, Longley, Ransier & Smith, of Waterloo, for appellee.
A promissory note for $1,200 was executed by Black Hawk Coffee & Spice Co. to the plaintiff, duly indorsed by George E. Lichty, dated January 18, 1915. One A. L. Sparling procured possession thereof by fraud, and exchanged it to the defendant E. F. Cranston for an automobile. The latter caused the note to be sent to the defendant bank for the collection of the semiannual interest, whereupon this action for the possession of the note was brought. The only question raised on appeal is whether this clause in the note renders it nonnegotiable:
“Makers and indorsers severally waive demand, notice and protest and consent to any extension of within note.”
The point, having been fully considered in the recent decision in Quinn v. Bane, Adm'r, 164 N. W. 788, filed at the present term, there is no occasion for another review of the authorities. We are content with the opinion in that case, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. Corn Exch. Nat. Bank of Omaha
... ... amount found due be declared to be a first lien upon the ... property described in said mortgage; that said mortgage be ... foreclosed in ... ...
-
McDonald v. Mulkey
... ... Calkins v. Coal Co. 25 Wyo. 409; Boswell v ... Bank, 16 Wyo. 161; Riner v. Ins. Co. 9 Wyo ... 181. Parties ... 508; ... Bank v. Heslet (Kan.) 113 P. 1052; Manhard v ... Bank (Ia.) 165 N.W. 185; Woodbury v. Roberts ... request the defendant for the first time called attention to ... the fact that the reply ... Edelen v. First Nat'l. Bank, 139 Md. 422, 115 A ... 602. In the note in that ... ...
-
Wayne Cnty. Nat. Bank v. Cook
...State Bank v. Heslet, 84 Kan. 315, 113 Pac. 1052, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 738;Quinn v. Bane, 182 Iowa, 843, 164 N. W. 788;Manhard v. First Nat. Bank (Iowa) 165 N. W. 185. In the case of Glidden v. Henry, supra, the rule is stated as follows: “In the case before us, all parts of the note must be......
- Harry H. Polk & Co. v. Johnson