German Sav. Bank v. Bates Addition Imp. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1900
• Citation: German Sav. Bank v. Bates Addition Imp. Co., 111 Iowa 432, 82 N.W. 1005 (Iowa 1900)
• Parties: GERMAN SAVINGS BANK v. BATES ADDITION IMPROVEMENT COMPANY AND FREDERICK FIELD, Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

82 N.W. 1005

111 Iowa 432

GERMAN SAVINGS BANK v. BATES ADDITION IMPROVEMENT COMPANY AND FREDERICK FIELD, Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 17, 1900

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. C. P. HOLMES, Judge.

THE receiver of the plaintiff bank asks judgment on a promissory note for three hundred and fifty-one dollars and forty-five cents, dated September 26, 1893, due ninety days after date executed by the defendant company to the plaintiff bank, and indorsed by defendant Field and five others, guaranteeing payment at maturity.The defendant Field answered admitting the execution and guaranteeing of said note, denying that the same is a valid claim against him, and alleging that the same has been fully paid by the taking of other notes in settlement thereof; also alleging that the bank, without his knowledge or consent, extended the time of payment, wherefore he says his liability ceased.The defendant company answered admitting its corporate capacity, and denying every other allegation in the petition.At the close of the evidence the defendant Field moved for a verdict, which was overruled, and thereupon the plaintiff moved for a verdict, which was sustained, and verdict and judgment rendered accordingly.The defendantFrederick Field appeals.

Reversed.

Connor & Weaver for appellant.

Dowell & Parrish for appellee.

OPINION

GIVEN, J.

I.

The note in suit was executed by "Bates Addition Improvement Company, by Frederick Field, Pres., by B. F. Holcomb, Sec.," and guarantied by Frederick Field and five others by an indorsement thereon.At the maturity of this note, to-wit, December 30, 1893, the defendant company, in consideration of that indebtedness, executed to plaintiff its promissory note for three hundred and fifty-one dollars and forty-five cents, due at a future date, and the defendant company paid the interest thereon in advance to maturity.Thereafter new notes of the defendant company were taken on account of this indebtedness, and interest paid in like manner on the maturity of the last note executed; the last of the series being dated November 2, 1896, and due four months after date.It appears to have been agreed between the bank and the company, when the first of this series of renewal notes was given, that the bank should retain the original note until the renewal note was indorsed as the original was, but it does not appear that this subject was ever afterwards mentioned at the time any of the other eight or nine renewal notes that followed were executed.Each of these renewal notes except the two last, was surrendered when renewed, but the original note has remained continuously in the possession of the bank, and has never been canceled or surrendered.The defendant Field executed the original note as president, but it does not appear by whom the renewal notes, except the two last, were executed, and they are not by Mr. Field.Mr. Field testifies that he was abroad from January to July, 1894, and that he sold his stock in the defendant company April, 1895.There is no evidence that he was ever called upon to indorse any of these renewal notes, nor that he consented to or had any knowledge of their execution.Others acted for the defendant company in giving these renewal notes.

II.The only question presented in this case is whether the original note was satisfied by the execution and delivery of any or all of the renewal notes.If it was satisfied there was no extension of the time for its payment, and if it was not satisfied plaintiff could have sued upon it at any time after its maturity, and in that case there was no extension of time.If all or any of the renewal notes were received by the plaintiff in the place of, and in satisfaction of, the note in suit, then it was satisfied; but if the renewal notes were received under an agreement that they were not to stand in lieu of the first until indorsed as it was indorsed, and that the first was to be in force until that was done, then there was no satisfaction of the note in suit.The evidence is undisputed that such was the...