Fond du Lac Skyport, Inc. v. Moraine Airways, Inc., 355
| Decision Date | 04 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 355,355 |
| Citation | 67 Wis.2d 109,226 N.W.2d 428 |
| Parties | FOND DU LAC SKYPORT, INC., a Wisconsin corp., Respondent, v. MORAINE AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant, James D'Amato, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Fond du Lac Skyport, Inc., hereinafter plaintiff, commenced an action to recover a debt against Moraine Airways, Inc. (hereinafter Moraine), the debtor, and James D'Amato, hereinafter defendant, as guarantor of the credit accounts of Moraine. The case was tried to the court and judgment was for the plaintiff and against Moraine and the defendant jointly and severally in the amount of $3,157.26, plus interest and costs. The defendant appeals.
D'Amato & Cusack, Waukesha, for appellant.
Colwin & Ondrasek, S.C., Fond du Lac, for respondent.
Plaintiff operates the Fond du Lac County airport facilities. Sometime prior to October 19, 1972, Moraine was operating a commercial airline service into the airport. Arrangements were made between Moraine and the plaintiff for the plaintiff to service its planes, including the furnishing of gasoline, fuel, and other services.
Because of the nature of Moraine's operation, the plaintiff requested, as additional consideration for the granting of credit, that one of the officers and directors of Moraine, the defendant, guarantee payment of the credit account.
On October 19, 1972, the defendant sent the following letter to the plaintiff:
'Dear Mr. Perrizo:
'Mrs. Sally Mabbott requested that I write to you about the account of Moraine Airways, Inc., and she suggested that I give you a letter of guaranty for payment of the account of Moraine Airways, Inc. as may be due from time to time.
'This letter is my guarantee that I will be personally responsible for accounts of Moraine Airways, Inc. and that payment will be made by me within thirty (30) days of notice sent to my office of Moraine's delinquent account.
'Thank you for your past favors to Moraine.
'Very truly yours,
'James D'Amato'
Thereafter, Moraine received services and fuel from the plaintiff and had an unpaid account for such items as of December 19, 1972, in the amount of $1,509.06. As of the same date, Moraine also owed the plaintiff a balance of $1,648.22 for repairs to an airplane operated by Moraine on a lease arrangement from a third party.
In answering the complaint, the defendant admitted the following significant facts; that as additional consideration for granting credit to Moraine, the plaintiff requested of Moraine that the defendant guarantee payment of the account of Moraine; that pursuant to such request the defendant sent such a letter of credit; that due demand has been made for payment and defendant has refused and continues to refuse payment; that notice of delinquency of the account was furnished the defendant and that he refused to make payment in accordance with the provisions of the letter of credit.
The answer also alleges that defendant did not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the arrangements between the plaintiff and Moraine for the furnishing of fuel, maintenance and other services or the amount of such materials and services so furnished and performed.
Under a caption in his pleading entitled 'AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,' the defendant alleges that he was not involved in the daily operation of Moraine, had no knowledge of its dealings with the plaintiff and was informed that part of the money sought was for repairs of a leased plane damaged in a collision; that the cost of the repairs was covered by insurance and that such proceeds were being held by the leasing company. His affirmative defense also alleges that he owes plaintiff $1,509.06; requests an accounting; and finally alleges he is able and willing to pay the plaintiff the sum due it.
Default judgment was entered against Moraine in the amount of $3,157.26. Subsequently, the instant case was brought on for trial. The defendant did not personally appear. However, he was represented by counsel. Wilbert Haase, president of the plaintiff and the airport manager, was the only person to testify. He testified as to the source and amounts of the accounts, their delinquency and the demands for payment. He also testified that the plaintiff had asked for and received a letter of credit from the defendant to guarantee the account of Moraine.
The defendant did not present any evidence and after testimony and in argument to the court, defendant's counsel asserted that the defendant did not know whether the letter of credit had been accepted by the plaintiff and that no notice of acceptance had been sent to the defendant.
The trial court found that 'based on the entire record herein and the pleadings, and the admissions of the defendant in its answer, together with the exhibits received into evidence, it is the court's determination that the plaintiff shall have judgment against the defendant. . . .'
On appeal, the defendant contends there is no evidence proving plaintiff sent defendant a notice of acceptance of his letter of guarantee. The general rule, and the rule which we find applicable to the facts of this case, is that mutual assent and agreement can be found where the creditor requests a letter of guarantee of a third party, who then sends the letter. 38 Am.Jur.2d, Guaranty, p. 1037, sec. 39; p. 1039, sec. 41; Annot. (1966), 6 A.L.R.3rd 355.
The defendant takes the position that this rule is not applicable to the instant case because the evidence will not support a finding that the request for the guarantee was made directly to the defendant. Such a contention raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence. From our examination of the record, we conclude that the finding of the trial court that the defendant was liable on the contract of guarantee was not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.
Chicago Lock Co. v. Kirchner (1929), 199 Wis. 30, 225 N.W. 185, presented a factual situation very similar to this case. The court there rejected the contention that the letter constituted an offer requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hasley v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc.
...are not properly presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Fond du Lac Skyport, Inc. v. Moraine Airways (1975), 67 Wis.2d 109, 114, 226 N.W.2d 428. Exceptions do exist as to this rule. An exception has been claimed as to questions of jurisdiction, Nor......
-
Zobel by Hancox v. Fenendael, 84-1539
...Wis.2d 193, 274 N.W.2d 627 (1979); Figgs v. City of Milwaukee, 121 Wis.2d 44, 357 N.W.2d 548 (1984); Fond du Lac Skyport, Inc. v. Moraine Airways, Inc., 67 Wis.2d 109, 226 N.W.2d 428 (1975); Poehling v. La Crosse Plumbing Supply Co., 24 Wis.2d 239, 128 N.W.2d 419 (1964); Metropolitan Sewera......
-
State ex rel. Wolf v. Town of Lisbon
...not raised or considered by the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Fond du Lac Skyport, Inc. v. Moraine Airways, 67 Wis.2d 109, 115, 226 N.W.2d 428 (1975); Northern States Power Co. v. Hunter Board of Supervisors, 57 Wis.2d 118, 132, 203 N.W.2d 878 (1973). We h......
- Will v. State