Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Snouffer
| Decision Date | 09 July 1908 |
| Citation | 139 Iowa 176,117 N.W. 50 |
| Parties | FULLERTON LUMBER CO. v. SNOUFFER ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Linn County; F. O. Ellison, Judge.
Suit upon a promissory note. There was a directed verdict for the plaintiff, and from a judgment thereon the defendants appeal. Reversed.Jamison & Smyth, for appellants.
Chas. D. Harrison, for appellee.
The note in suit was dated January 1, 1905, and was due October 1, 1905, Both defendants signed the note as makers thereof; but the appellant Ann J. Snouffer pleaded that she was in fact a surety only and that the time of payment had been extended without her consent or knowledge, and there was evidence tending to support such defense. Mr. R. C. Cutter was the manager of the plaintiff's business in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, its home office being in Minneapolis, Minn., and he took the note and made the alleged extension of the time of payment. The appellee contends that there was no evidence that Cutter had authority to extend the time of payment or that his act had been in any way ratified.
It will, of course, be conceded that if Cutter had no authority to extend the time of payment of the note, and if his act was not ratified by the appellee, Mrs. Snouffer was not released from liability thereon. That an agent cannot bind his principal beyond the scope of his authority is well settled. But it was shown that Cutter had general authority to extend credit on sales made by him for the appellee and to fix the time of such credit. It was also shown that he was specially authorized to accept the note in suit in settlement of an account against J. J. Snouffer, Jr., and that he was given authority to fix the time when the note should become due. Furthermore, it appears that Cutter was paid in advance the interest which would accrue for the extended time, and that the appellee received the money and made no objection thereto. With such facts in the record, we think the authority of Cutter was a question for the jury, and not for the court. There was evidence which would have warranted the jury in finding that the time of payment had been extended for a valuable consideration without the knowledge or consent of Ann J. Snouffer, and the entire question on this branch of the case should have been submitted to the jury.
While conceding that Ann J. Snouffer was a surety on the note, the appellee insists that by the terms of the note itself she was bound to pay the same, and hence was primarily liable thereon, within the meaning of section 3060a192, Code Supp. 1907, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hederman v. Cox
... ... 366, 200 S.W. 1062; ... Snyder v. McEwen, 148 Tenn. 423, 256 S.W. 434; ... Fullerton Lbr. Co. v. Snouffer, 139 Iowa 176, 117 ... N.W. 50; 48 A. L. R. 719; Union Tr. Co. v. McGinty, ... ...
-
The Bank of Conway, a Corp. v. Stary
... ... First Nat. Bank v ... Bickel, 143 Ky. 754, 137 S.W. 790; Lyons Lumber Co ... v. Stewart, 147 Ky. 653, 145 S.W. 376; Overland Auto ... Co. v. Winters, Mo.App. , 180 ... 80, 198 S.W. 543; Kopf v. Yordy, ... 200 Ill.App. 409; Id., 208 Ill.App. 580; Fullerton Lumber ... Co. v. Snouffer, 139 Iowa 176, 117 N.W. 50; Auto ... Brokerage Co. v. Morris & S ... ...
-
Continental Mut. Sav. Bank v. Elliott
... ... defendants in error ( Fullerton Lbr. Co. v. Snouffer et ... al., 139 Iowa, 176, 117 N.W. 50, but the great weight ... instrument is subject to the same defenses as if it were ... nonnegotiable.' Lumber Co. v. Snouffer, 139 ... Iowa, 176, 117 N.W. 50. The [166 Wash. 297] arguments on each ... ...
-
Vernon Center State Bank v. Mangelsen
...to be, indorsers only. G. Sommers & Co. v. Tintah Co-operative Mercantile Co., 192 N. W. 492, 155 Minn. 107. Fullerton Lbr. Co. v. Snouffer, 117 N. W. 50, 139 Iowa, 176, seems to stand alone to the contrary. We have given that opinion attentive consideration. Aside from the great weight of ......