Commercial Nat. Bank of Appleton v. Goodrick
| Decision Date | 12 October 1900 |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 766,107 Wis. 574 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL NAT. BANK OF APPLETON v. GOODRICK ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Outagamie county; John Goodland, Judge.
Action by the Commercial National Bank of Appleton, Wis., against E. W. Goodrick and A. L. Smith. From a judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant Smith, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This action was brought to recover on a promissory note for $1,000 executed by the defendant Goodrick to one Rowell, and by him sold to the plaintiff. The defendant Smith was made a party, as having signed a guaranty on the back of the note, as follows: Goodrick defaulted. Smith answered in abatement that Rowell was a joint owner of the note with plaintiff, and asked that he be made a party. He admitted signing the guaranty as alleged, but set forth that it was a special promise to answer for the debt of another. A jury was waived. On the trial the defendant Smith objected to any evidence under the complaint, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The objection was overruled. After some evidence had been taken, the plaintiff asked leave to file an amended complaint, to which the defendant entered a similar objection. After argument the court sustained the objection and granted judgment for the defendant. The amended complaint, after setting out the execution and delivery of the note with the guaranty, alleged, in substance, that the omission to state a consideration in the guaranty was an oversight, and that Smith did in fact receive a valuable consideration for the execution of said guaranty, which is claimed to rest upon the following facts: Smith and Rowell were stockholders in a corporation; the latter owning a controlling interest and dictating its policy, which was not satisfactory to Smith. He, with the defendant Goodrick, proposed to buy out Rowell's interest; he to retire, and Goodrick to take his place. Rowell was to sell Smith 170 shares, and to Goodrick 470 shares, which would give them the control of the corporation. Goodrick was to give five notes of $1,000 each, and Rowell declined to take said notes unless three of them were guarantied by Smith, which he consented to, and signed the guaranty on the note in suit. There was a further allegation that Goodrick made a written pledge of his stock to a trustee to secure the payment of these notes. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment dismissing the complaint as against Smith.
E. G. Jones and J. C. Kerwin, for appellant.
Lyman E. Barnes, for respondent.
BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).
On its face the guaranty was confessedly bad, under subdivision 2, § 2307, Rev. St. 1898, because it failed to express any consideration. It was so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowell v. Smith
...between them independent of that between the former and Goodrick, satisfying the rule declared in Commercial National Bank of Appleton v. Smith et al., 107 Wis. 574, 83 N. W. 766, or to suggest that there was fraud in fact or in law in the failure of Smith to execute a valid guaranty. The d......
-
Langley v. Sanborn
...was made in the pleadings. Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186, 52 N. W. 257;Crowley v. Hicks, 98 Wis. 566, 74 N. W. 348;Commercial Nat. Bank v. Smith, 107 Wis. 574, 83 N. W. 766. The result is that the evidence is conclusive that the agreement described in the first question of the special verdi......
-
McKone v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...its own obligations to third persons, was not under the circumstances a consideration for the plaintiff's promise. Commercial Bank v. Smith, 107 Wis. 574, 577, 83 N. W. 766;Clapp v. Webb, 52 Wis. 638, 9 N. W. 796;Havana Press Drill Co. v. Ashurst, 148 Ill. 115, 35 N. E. 873. The other matte......
- Carpenter v. Bayfield W. Ry. Co.