Heffner v. Brownell
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Capital Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Swan (Iowa 1897)
- Lawson v. Fordyce (Iowa 1945)
- Orr v. Sutton (Minn. 1914)
- Wiers v. Treese (Okla. 1911)
- Briel v. Exchange Nat. Bank (Ala. 1911)
- Albany Furniture Co. v. Merchants National Bank (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)
- Larkin v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co. (Iowa 1894)
- Garretson v. Merchants & Bankers Insurance (Iowa 1894)
- Corn v. Rosenthal (New York Court of Common Pleas 1893)
- National German American Bank v. Lang (N.D. 1891)
- Kessel v. Murray (Iowa 1924)
- Taylor v. Reger (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)
- Rice v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workman (Iowa 1897)
- Swarts v. Cohen (Ind. Ct. App. 1894)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
— I. On the former appeal we held that “the note purports on its face'to be the note of all the persons, including the corporation, who executed it” The correctness of that holding has been questioned on this appeal, and numerous authorities have been cited with which it is claimed by counsel to be in conflict. But the settled rule is that we will not on a second appeal review or reverse the decision made on the former appeal. Adams County v. Burlington & M. R. Ry. Co., 55 Iowa, 94. The holding is therefore the law of the case.
II. The only other question in the case is whether extrinsic evidence would be admissible to show the intention of the parties. There is no ambiguity in the language of the contract, but it clearly expresses the undertaking of the parties. The almost uniform holding of the authorities is that in such cases parol evidence of the intention óf the parties is not admissible. The holding of many of the cases cited by appellee on the first proposition is to that effect. Scanlan v. Keith, 102 Ill. 634; Draper v. Mass. Steam Heating Co., 5 Allen, 338. We think the demurrer should have been : sustained.
Reversed,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.