Norton v. Knapp
| Citation | 64 Iowa 112,19 N.W. 867 |
| Parties | NORTON AND OTHERS v. KNAPP. |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1884 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Floyd circuit court.
Action to recover for property sold and delivered, and on an accepted draft. Judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appeal.P. W. Burr, for appellants.
Wilbur & Sherwin, for appellee.
Because of the statements contained in an amended abstract we are required to set out the petition as follows:
“That the plaintiffs sold and delivered to the defendant, about February 17, 1882, a certain flaxseed-cleaner mill, at the agreed price of eighty dollars, no part of which had been paid, and that the same was then due.
That on or about April, 1882, plaintiffs drew a sight draft on defendant for the agreed price of said mill, which was in words and figures as follows:
+-------------------------------------+
¦$80.¦LA CROSSE, WIS., April 18, 1882.¦
+-------------------------------------+
At sight pay to the order of Exchange Bank of Nora Springs, Iowa, eighty dollars, value received, and charge the same to the account of
NORTON & KEELER.
To Miles Knapp, Nora Springs, Ia.”
--Which was accepted by said Miles Knapp in written words and figures, on the back thereof, as follows: Also alleging “that said draft was still the property of plaintiff, due and unpaid, and claiming judgment for eighty dollars, interest, and costs.”
To the foregoing petition the defendant demurred, on the ground “that the draft set out in the petition does not show a legal acceptance.” The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant answered, denying the allegations of the petition, and pleaded a special defense as to the flaxseed cleaner. The plaintiffs withdrew or dismissed “so much of their cause of action as was based on the sale of the flaxseed-cleaning machine, leaving the draft as their sole cause of action.” A jury was impaneled to try the issue joined, and the plaintiff offered in evidence the draft, as above set out; to which the defendentobjected, on the ground that it had not been accepted by him. This objection was sustained, and the jury, under the direction of the court, found for the defendant, and judgment was rendered on the verdict. The amount in controversy being less than $100, the court has certified certain questions upon which the opinion of this court is desired. In substance, two of them are whether the words “kiss my foot,” on the back of the draft, signed by the drawee, is a legal and valid acceptance; and whether such acceptance can be introduced in evidence without showing it was the intention to accept the draft. The rule upon this subject is thus stated in 1 Pars. Bills & Notes, 282: “If a bill is presented to a drawee for the purpose of obtaining his acceptance, and he does anything to or with it which does not distinctly indicate that he will not accept it, he is held to be an acceptor, for he has the power, and it is his duty, to put this question beyond all possibility of doubt.”
Counsel for the defendant insist that it was held in Spear v. Pratt, 2 Hill, 582, that the words “I...
To continue reading
Request your trial