Harder v. Reinhardt
| Decision Date | 14 March 1916 |
| Citation | 156 N.W. 959,162 Wis. 558 |
| Parties | HARDER v. REINHARDT. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.
Action by Frank J. Harder against C. H. Reinhardt. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Judgment affirmed.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, Harder, against the defendant, Reinhardt, upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
+------------------------------------------+
¦“$800.00.¦Milwaukee, Wis., April 14, 1916.¦
+------------------------------------------+
For value received six (6) months after date I promise to pay to Frank J. Harder, or order, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, eight hundred dollars ($800.00), with interest at the rate of ______ per cent. per annum until paid, being money loaned me October 21, 1912.
C. H. Reinhardt.
Witness: Oscar Bing.”
The answer admitted the making of the note, but alleged facts tending to show that it was delivered for a special purpose only, and not to be paid by the defendant except under the conditions hereinafter set out. The facts were these: One Pettigrew, a son-in-law of Daniel W. Bloor, entered into a contract with the defendant for the construction of a building. The property, when the building was completed and its cost ascertained, was to be deeded by Pettigrew to Bloor. The plaintiff was a real estate man, had transacted business for Bloor, and acted for Pettigrew and Bloor in making payments as the same became due under the contract; the payments to be made out of funds to be furnished by Bloor. One payment of $700 had been made by plaintiff pursuant to the arrangement, and the defendant had demanded a second payment from plaintiff as the agent of Bloor. Plaintiff, having no funds in his hands belonging to Bloor, gave to the defendant his personal check on October 21, 1912, for $800, writing across the lower left-hand corner thereof the words “Pettigrew account,” and charged the same to Bloor's account in his ledger. Shortly after the giving of the check, and before any funds belonging to Bloor had come into plaintiff's hands, and on the 8th day of November, 1912, Bloor died. Thereafter plaintiff and defendant sought to collect the several amounts due them. It was proposed that the plaintiff and defendant should file claims against the estate of the deceased Bloor in county court. But, after some discussion and counsel with attorneys, it is claimed by the defendant that it was agreed he should file a claim for a mechanic's lien against the property and include therein the $800 advanced to him by the plaintiff, and that the note in question was given upon the understanding that it was not to be paid unless the $800 was collected in the lien suit. The plaintiff claimed the advancement was, in fact, a loan, and that it was so agreed between the parties at the time it was made. The jury found against the plaintiff's contention. The plaintiff does not attack the verdict as unsupported by the evidence, and the verdict stands as a verity in the case.
The jury by its verdict found: (1) That it was understood between the parties at the time plaintiff gave the $800 check to defendant that plaintiff was advancing the money on the Bloor contract, and that plaintiff was to look to Bloor and not to defendant for reimbursement; (2) that it was agreed between the parties that the defendant, for the benefit of the plaintiff, should include the $800 claim of plaintiff against Bloor's estate in his mechanic's lien foreclosure suit brought to enforce against the premises his claim for money due for constructing the building for Bloor; (3) that the note in suit was given for the purpose of using it to further recovery of the $800, together with defendant's claim of $1,201, in the mechanic's lien foreclosure suit, and with the understanding between the parties that the note would not be used against the defendant nor the amount thereof demanded from him unless the plaintiff should recover the full $2,001 in the foreclosure suit. Upon the verdict judgment was rendered for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. Byers Bros. & Co.
...admitted and is a complete defense, unless it be shown that plaintiff is an innocent holder." The finding of the jury in Harder v. Reinhardt, 162 Wis. 558, 156 N. W. 959, "(1) That it was understood between the parties at the time plaintiff gave the $800 check to defendant that plaintiff wa......
-
Ellis J. Gomez & Co. v. W. W. Hartwell
... ... upon the defendant. Among the cases so holding are ... Mason v. Cater, 192 Iowa 143, 182 N.W. 179; ... Harder v. Reinhardt, 162 Wis. 558, 156 N.W ... 959; Winfrey v. Ragan, 136 Mo.App. 250, 117 ... S.W. 83; Ellerd v. Ferguson (Tex. Civ ... App.) 218 S.W ... ...
-
Bosworth v. Cady
...§§ 11, 12, and 153; Hodge v. Smith, 130 Wis. 326, 110 N. W. 192; Swanke v. Herdeman, 138 Wis. 654, 120 N. W. 414; Harder v. Reinhardt, 162 Wis. 558, 159 N. W. 959. The McCartney National Bank took the notes sued upon in this case with knowledge of the infirmity of the instruments and not as......
-
Muender v. Muender
...instruments. Westberg v. Chicago, L. & C. Co., 117 Wis. 589, 94 N. W. 572. [3] It is argued that this case falls within Harder v. Reinhardt, 162 Wis. 558, 156 N. W. 959. It is not claimed that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement relating to delivery as in that case. The negotiations ......