Lansing v. Stanisics

Eighth Circuit

Lansing v. Stanisics

94 F. 380, 36 C.C.A. 306, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1899

DocketNo. 1,100

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 F. 380 (Lansing v. Stanisics) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lansing v. Stanisics, 94 F. 380, 36 C.C.A. 306, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 (8th Cir. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

The appellee filed in the court below his bill to foreclose a mortgage on lots in Lincoln, Neb., given to secure a note for $2,000, and $41.20 taxes. The appellants answered that, after the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage, they were altered and changed by inserting in each instrument the words “of Chicago, Ill.,” and “in gold coin.” The connection in which these words occur in the instrument is this: The note reads:

“On the second day of April, 1898,1 promise to pay Theodore Stanisics (trustee), of Chicago, III., or order, two thousand (in gold coin) dollars.”

It is claimed the italicized words are interpolated. The plaintiff denied that the instrument had been-altered. The evidence on the issue thus raised is conflicting. The learned chancellor of the circuit court found the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and decreed a foreclosure of the mortgage. The finding of the chancellor in the lower court on a question of fact is presumptively right, and will not be disturbed unless the appellate court can clearly see that, it is opposed to the weight of evidence. Snider v. Dobson, 40 U. S. App. 111, 21 C. C. A. 76, and 74 Fed. 757. We have read very carefully all the evidence in this case, and are not able to say that the lower court erred in its finding; indeed, we think its finding is supported by the weight of the evidence. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

The appellee filed in the court below his bill to foreclose a mortgage on lots in Lincoln, Neb., given to secure a note for $2,000, and $41.20 taxes. The appellants answered that, after the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage, they were altered and changed by inserting in each instrument the words “of Chicago, Ill.,” and “in gold coin.” The connection in which these words occur in the instrument is this: The note reads:

“On the second day of April, 1898,1 promise to pay Theodore Stanisics (trustee), of Chicago, III., or order, two thousand (in gold coin) dollars.”

It is claimed the italicized words are interpolated. The plaintiff denied that the instrument had been-altered. The evidence on the issue thus raised is conflicting. The learned chancellor of the circuit court found the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and decreed a foreclosure of the mortgage. The finding of the chancellor in the lower court on a question of fact is presumptively right, and will not be disturbed unless the appellate court can clearly see that, it is opposed to the weight of evidence. Snider v. Dobson, 40 U. S. App. 111, 21 C. C. A. 76, and 74 Fed. 757. We have read very carefully all the evidence in this case, and are not able to say that the lower court erred in its finding; indeed, we think its finding is supported by the weight of the evidence. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F. 380, 36 C.C.A. 306, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lansing-v-stanisics-ca8-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack