First National Bank v. Dougherty

Supreme Court of Iowa

First National Bank v. Dougherty

29 Iowa 260

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 15, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 Iowa 260 (First National Bank v. Dougherty) 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.

Bluebook

First National Bank v. Dougherty, 29 Iowa 260 (iowa 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Cole, Ch. J.

The petition is in the usual form for an action by indorsee upon a negotiable promissory note ; a copy of this note, with a proper stamp, is set out in the body of the petition. The defendant, for answer, admits that he executed the note, except that it was not stamped when signed, nor afterward by his consent or authority. He avers that it was given for a patent right, falsely represented to be such and of value, while it was in fact a fraud and worthless; that the note was given in consideration of the right to use and sell such patent right, which was to be conveyed to him, and the note was not to have any effect until such conveyance ; that no such conveyance had ever been made ; and the note never had any legal effect, as such. “ And he further states, that when the plaintiff’s received said note they knew full well all the matters as stated in this answer, and should not recover.” And for further answer he states, that plaintiff did not pay any value for the note.

The plaintiff demurred “to so much of the answer as claims the illegality of the note for deficiency in stamping, and shows : First. That the answer admits the making and delivery of the note to the payee : Second. It is not claimed that plaintiff had knowledge of any insufficiency of the stamp, as either party, by agreement, may stamp.” This demurrer was overruled, and such ruling is now assigned as error.

This case differs from Blackwell v. Denie, 23 Iowa, 63, in the essential particular that there the plaintiff received [262]*262the note in good faith and without any notice of the: failure of the maker to stamp it, as it appeared when he purchased it; while here it is distinctly averred that “plaintiff knew full well” that the note was not stamped' by the maker, nor was any one authorized by him to stamp it, but the same was made as an incomplete instrument, until the conveyance, which was to be the consideration for it, was executed. This ‘averment of knowledge on the part of plaintiff, was admitted by the demurrer, and thereby the plaintiff became in no better position than the payee ; and that he could not recover under the averments of this answer will be agreed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cole, Ch. J.

The petition is in the usual form for an action by indorsee upon a negotiable promissory note ; a copy of this note, with a proper stamp, is set out in the body of the petition. The defendant, for answer, admits that he executed the note, except that it was not stamped when signed, nor afterward by his consent or authority. He avers that it was given for a patent right, falsely represented to be such and of value, while it was in fact a fraud and worthless; that the note was given in consideration of the right to use and sell such patent right, which was to be conveyed to him, and the note was not to have any effect until such conveyance ; that no such conveyance had ever been made ; and the note never had any legal effect, as such. “ And he further states, that when the plaintiff’s received said note they knew full well all the matters as stated in this answer, and should not recover.” And for further answer he states, that plaintiff did not pay any value for the note.

The plaintiff demurred “to so much of the answer as claims the illegality of the note for deficiency in stamping, and shows : First. That the answer admits the making and delivery of the note to the payee : Second. It is not claimed that plaintiff had knowledge of any insufficiency of the stamp, as either party, by agreement, may stamp.” This demurrer was overruled, and such ruling is now assigned as error.

This case differs from Blackwell v. Denie, 23 Iowa, 63, in the essential particular that there the plaintiff received [262]*262the note in good faith and without any notice of the: failure of the maker to stamp it, as it appeared when he purchased it; while here it is distinctly averred that “plaintiff knew full well” that the note was not stamped' by the maker, nor was any one authorized by him to stamp it, but the same was made as an incomplete instrument, until the conveyance, which was to be the consideration for it, was executed. This ‘averment of knowledge on the part of plaintiff, was admitted by the demurrer, and thereby the plaintiff became in no better position than the payee ; and that he could not recover under the averments of this answer will be agreed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Iowa 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-dougherty-iowa-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack