Commercial Bank v. King
This text of 47 Iowa 64 (Commercial Bank v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant, King, executed his promissory note, payable to the order of Daugherty & Co., and the petition stated that the plaintiff was the owner of said note, and was a corporation created and existing under the laws of Iowa. The answer set up two defenses: 1. That plaintiff did not own said note, and did not purchase the same in good faith and for value before maturity; and 2. That the consideration of said note was certain intoxicating liquors sold by the payees of the note to said King.
The cause was tried by the court by whom there was a finding of facts as follows: “That the sole consideration of the note was intoxicating liquors sold by the payees to defendant, contrary to the laws of Iowa; but plaintiff is an innocent holder of said note for value and entitled to recover, if the plaintiff has the power to purchase or take said note under the evidence . hereinafter set out, which is all the evidence on that point in the case.”
III. It is lastly assigned as error that “ the court erred in finding for the plaintiff on the issues made and the findings and evidence in the record.” What has been said sufficiently shows that this assignment of error is not well taken.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
47 Iowa 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-bank-v-king-iowa-1877.