Edwards v. Petrone
| Decision Date | 19 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-0852,90-0852 |
| Citation | 465 N.W.2d 847,160 Wis.2d 255 |
| Parties | William C. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jerry W. PETRONE, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
David C. Bangert of Bangert & Blondis, S.C., Milwaukee, on brief, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Seymour of Seymour, Kremer, Nommensen & Morrissy, Elkhorn, on brief, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before NETTESHEIM, P.J., and BROWN and ANDERSON, JJ.
Jerry W. Petrone seeks review of a judgment determining that he owed $42,522.84 in principal and interest on a promissory note to William C. Edwards. Petrone argues that the trial court erred in holding the promissory note, which was under seal, to be an executed contract, and in excluding evidence to support Petrone's affirmative defense of failure of consideration. We affirm because the promissory note was an executed contract under seal therefore, the seal was conclusive evidence of sufficiency of consideration.
Edwards commenced this action to collect on a promissory note of $50,000 given to him by Petrone. The terms of the note required Petrone to make an initial payment of $25,000 followed by twelve monthly payments of $2000 and a final payment of $1000. Edwards alleged that all he had been paid was $19,500 and there was due and owing $30,500 plus interest at the legal rate of 12% per annum.
In his answer Petrone admitted the execution and delivery of the note but denied that he was in default on the terms of the payment. Petrone also raised the affirmative defenses of failure of consideration and accord and satisfaction.
During trial the court held that the promissory note was under seal and was an executed contract; therefore, the seal was conclusive evidence of sufficient consideration. Based on this ruling, the court sustained Edwards's objections to Petrone's introduction of any evidence concerning consideration on the grounds that such evidence was immaterial and irrelevant.
The interpretation of a contract is a question of law and although we consider the circuit court's interpretation, we owe no deference to the court. See Demerath v. Nestle Co., 121 Wis.2d 194, 197, 358 N.W.2d 541, 543 (Ct.App.1984).
An executed contract is a contract under which all promises have been fulfilled and nothing remains to be done, see 1 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts secs. 27-28 (3d ed. 1957); Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679, 683, 24 L.Ed. 558 (1878). An executory contract is a contract in which the parties have bound themselves to future activity that is not yet completed. See Farrington, 95 U.S. at 683; see also First Wis. Nat'l Bank v. Oby, 52 Wis.2d 1, 6-7, 188 N.W.2d 454, 457 (1971).
The promissory note from Petrone to Edwards is an executed contract. Edwards delivered $50,000 to Petrone and Petrone,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yorgan v. Durkin
...assigned an interest in property is a question of contract interpretation subject to our independent review. Edwards v. Petrone, 160 Wis.2d 255, 258, 465 N.W.2d 847 (Ct.App. 1990). Whether a lien has attached to property is also reviewed independently. See McIntyre v. Cox, 68 Wis.2d 597, 60......
-
EState Kriefall v. Sizzler U.S. Franchise Inc.
...and apply statutes and contracts. In doing so, our review of what the trial court did is de novo. See Edwards v. Petrone, 160 Wis.2d 255, 258, 465 N.W.2d 847, 848 (Ct.App.1990) (contract); Village of Shorewood v. Steinberg, 174 Wis.2d 191, 201, 496 N.W.2d 57, 61 (1993) (statute). Further, w......
-
Rinaldi v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (In re Rinaldi)
...consideration. But Mr. Rinaldi executed the Note under seal, which is conclusive proof of consideration. See Edwards v. Petrone, 160 Wis.2d 255, 258, 465 N.W.2d 847 (Ct.App.1990) (presence of a seal establishes consideration for executed contracts). Claiming that the Note's endorsement is e......
-
Froedtert v. National States
...a matter of law. WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2). ¶ 12 Contract interpretation is a question of law we review de novo. Edwards v. Petrone, 160 Wis.2d 255, 258, 465 N.W.2d 847 (Ct.App.1990); Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis.2d 397, 460, 405 N.W.2d 354 (Ct.App.1987). The interpretation of terms and cl......