Banking Comm'n v. Magnin
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | FAIRCHILD |
| Citation | 300 N.W. 740,239 Wis. 36 |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1941 |
| Parties | BANKING COMMISSION v. MAGNIN. |
239 Wis. 36
300 N.W. 740
BANKING COMMISSION
v.
MAGNIN.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Nov. 4, 1941.
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Oconto County; Arold F. Murphy, Judge.
Reversed.
Action begun July 24, 1940, by the Banking Commission of Wisconsin as statutory receiver of the State Bank of Oconto Falls, against Elmer C. Magnin, to recover an amount due on a note signed by defendant. The defendant's demurrer to the complaint was sustained. Plaintiff appeals from that order.
It is agreed that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the note and that no payments were made thereon. The note matured September 1, 1931. Defendant's position is that the note was outlawed at the end of a six-year period from its maturity. Plaintiff contends that the note is a sealed instrument and that the statute of limitations to be applied is found in sec. 330.16 (2), Stats., and that the action having been brought within 20 years was timely. The note is not unusual in form for a promissory note and the printed form on which it was made concluded as follows:
“Witness_____hand_____and seal_____
“_____(Seal)”.
Defendant's signature was immediately followed by the word “seal” enclosed in parentheses, but none of the blanks in the preceding clause were filled in.
Alk, Kresky, Cohen & Hughes, of Green Bay, for appellant.
Lehner & Lehner, Adolph P. Lehner, and Howard W. Eslien, all of Oconto Falls, and Orville S. Luckenbach, of Shawano, for respondent.
[300 N.W. 741]
FAIRCHILD, Justice.
[1] We are of the opinion that the note is under seal and that the 20 year statute of limitations applies. While a promissory note is not required to be under seal, there is no reason in law why the maker of a note may not, for purposes satisfactory to him and his payee, make his ordinary promise in the form of a specialty by adding a seal. Section 235.17, Stats., provides that a scroll or device as a seal upon an instrument “shall have the same force and effect as a seal attached thereto” and then it is to be “of the same obligation as if actually sealed.” The note in question was on a printed form. The portion just preceding the respondent's signature contained the words and blanks quoted above. The note was signed by respondent immediately preceding the word “seal” in parentheses.
Respondent's contention is that the printed word “seal” is neither a scroll nor a device and therefore does not come within the provisions of the statute and should not be regarded as being a seal. He points to the form in which the statute is drawn and the apparent distinction therein made between instruments not required to be under seal and those required to be executed with the solemnity of a sealed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Cook (In re Schultz's Estate)
...reason. Wisconsin Stats. 116.10(3). Being a Wisconsin contract under seal the twenty year statute applies. Banking Commission v. Magnin, 239 Wis. 36, 300 N.W. 740;Fond du Lac Citizens Loan & Inv. Co. v. Webb, 240 Wis. 42, 1 N.W.2d 772,2 N.W.2d 722;Singer v. General Acc., F. & L. Assur. Corp......
-
Stern v. Miner
...of the drawing. It was because of the fact that these items were upon the face of the contract the contemplated and expected advantages [300 N.W. 740]in the scheme that the court in the LaCrosse case treated increased attendance and attendance at theaters without reference to the entertainm......
-
Fond Du Lac Citizens Loan & Inv. Co. v. Webb
...actually sealed.” That statute and the interpretation to be found in Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 534, 549, and Banking Commission v. Magnin, 239 Wis. 36, 300 N.W. 740, require the holding that this note so signed by Carey was under seal and necessitates the reversal of the ruling below. Judgm......
-
Banking Comm'n of Wis. v. Magnin
...of Shawano, for respondent.FAIRCHILD, Justice. The essential facts in this case are identical with those in Banking Commission v. Magnin, 300 N.W. 740, decided herewith, and the rules of law applicable there are likewise decisive of this case. Both cases were briefed and argued together. Th......
-
Cook v. Cook (In re Schultz's Estate)
...reason. Wisconsin Stats. 116.10(3). Being a Wisconsin contract under seal the twenty year statute applies. Banking Commission v. Magnin, 239 Wis. 36, 300 N.W. 740;Fond du Lac Citizens Loan & Inv. Co. v. Webb, 240 Wis. 42, 1 N.W.2d 772,2 N.W.2d 722;Singer v. General Acc., F. & L. Assur. Corp......
-
Stern v. Miner
...of the drawing. It was because of the fact that these items were upon the face of the contract the contemplated and expected advantages [300 N.W. 740]in the scheme that the court in the LaCrosse case treated increased attendance and attendance at theaters without reference to the entertainm......
-
Fond Du Lac Citizens Loan & Inv. Co. v. Webb
...actually sealed.” That statute and the interpretation to be found in Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 534, 549, and Banking Commission v. Magnin, 239 Wis. 36, 300 N.W. 740, require the holding that this note so signed by Carey was under seal and necessitates the reversal of the ruling below. Judgm......
-
Banking Comm'n of Wis. v. Magnin
...of Shawano, for respondent.FAIRCHILD, Justice. The essential facts in this case are identical with those in Banking Commission v. Magnin, 300 N.W. 740, decided herewith, and the rules of law applicable there are likewise decisive of this case. Both cases were briefed and argued together. Th......