Bruha v. La Crosse Plow Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1935 |
| Citation | 260 N.W. 425,218 Wis. 238 |
| Parties | BRUHA v. LA CROSSE PLOW CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for La Crosse County; R. S. Cowie, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This action was begun on December 19, 1933, by A. J. Bruha, plaintiff, against the La Crosse Plow Company, defendant, to recover interest claimed to be due upon a note. There was a trial by the court, and judgment for the defendant entered on December 20, 1934, from which the plaintiff appeals.
The following facts appear without dispute: On July 7, 1922, the defendant gave to the plaintiff its promissory note in words and figures as follows:
+----------------------------------------+
¦“$5,000.00¦La Crosse, Wis., July 7, 1922¦
+----------------------------------------+
On demand after date we promise to pay to the order of A. J. Bruha Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars at their office for value received with interest after date at 7% per cent per annum.
La Crosse Plow Company,
H. J. Hirshheimer, Vice Pres.
Countersigned,
A. J. Bruha Assistant Treas.
(Reverse side)
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦“Int.¦paid to 7/7/26 ¦3 yrs 2 mo 15 da¦ ¦
+-----+------------------------+----------------+----------¦
¦90% ¦prin. & Int. to 11/22/26¦5000 ¦$1,122.91 ¦
+-----+------------------------+----------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Paid 2/5/30 ¦1 yr 18 days ¦ ¦
+-----+------------------------+----------------+----------¦
¦10% ¦prin. & Int. to 11/22/26¦500 ¦ ¦
+-----+------------------------+----------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Paid 2/23/31 ¦ ¦36.75 ¦
+-----+------------------------+----------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦$1,159.66”¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
On November 22, 1926, the defendant conveyed all of its property to one Burt C. Smith as trustee, who accepted the trust and continued to act as trustee until January 1, 1931. The claim of creditors against the La Crosse Plow Company was filed and paid by the trustee with interest to November 22, 1926; the last payment being made on February 22, 1931. It is undisputed that the principal has been fully paid and all interest except interest from November 22, 1926, for the amount of which, $1,159.66, this action is brought.
Lees & Bunge, of La Crosse, for appellant.
George H. Gordon and Law & Gordon, all of La Crosse, for respondent.
[1] It was contended at the trial, upon oral argument and in briefs of counsel here, that the plaintiff accepted the principal of his note, with interest to November 22, 1926, in full satisfaction and accord of his claim. We find it unnecessary to determine that question. It appears without dispute that the entire principal was paid. The payment is so indorsed upon the back of the note; 90 per cent. of the principal having been paid February 5, 1930, and the remaining 10 per cent. having been paid February 23, 1931, all interest being paid to November 22, 1926. The note, being payable upon demand, was due when the loan was made. Barry v. Minahan, 127 Wis. 570, 107 N. W. 488; 17 R. C. L. par. 136, case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Schroeder
...demand ...."). Under Wisconsin law, a note that is "payable upon demand" is "due when the loan [is] made." See Bruha v. La Crosse Plow Co. , 218 Wis. 238, 260 N.W. 425, 426 (1935) ; see also London & Lancashire Indem. Co. v. Allen , 272 Wis. 75, 74 N.W.2d 793, 795 (1956) ("The note, being p......
-
Perry v. Riske
...maker signed it. In that case this court pointed out that a note payable on demand is due immediately, citing Bruha v. La Crosse Plow Co., 1935, 218 Wis. 238 240, 260 N.W. 425, and Accola v. Giese, 1937, 223 Wis. 431, 433, 271 N.W. 19. In London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Allen, supra, n......
-
Accola v. Giese
...note was payable on demand. Being payable upon demand, the note was due when the loan was made on December 1, 1926. Bruha v. La Crosse Plow Co., 218 Wis. 238, 260 N.W. 425;Barry v. Minahan, 127 Wis. 570, 107 N. W. 488. The note contains the following provision: “Sureties or endorsers hereby......
-
London & Lancashire Indem. Co. v. Allen
...the terms of a written instrument. The ruling was correct. The note, being payable on demand, was due at once. Bruha v. La Crosse Plow Co., 1935, 218 Wis. 238, 240, 260 N.W. 425; Accola v. Giese, 1936, 223 Wis. 431, 433, 271 N.W. 19. Testimony that, by oral agreement, it was not to be due u......