Malanaphy v. Fuller & Johnson Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1904 |
| Citation | 101 N.W. 640,125 Iowa 719 |
| Parties | M. J. MALANAPHY, ET AL., Appellees, v. FULLER AND JOHNSON MFG. CO., ET AL., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.--HON. L. F. FELLOWS, Judge.
ACTION in equity to restrain the enforcement of a judgment at law under execution. The action was commenced by M. J. Malanaphy and James Daly, formerly partners under the firm name of Malanaphy & Daly, and as such doing business at Decorah, this State, as dealers in farm implements. Before the trial the said Malanaphy died intestate, and Mary A. Malanaphy administratrix of his estate, was substituted as plaintiff. The material facts are not seriously in dispute. On June 20 1889, the firm of Malanaphy & Daly was indebted on merchandise account to the defendant company in the sum of $ 179, and on that day the firm note was given for said sum due November 1, 1890, with interest after maturity. Shortly thereafter Malanaphy & Daly sold and transferred its business, including stock on hand, to the partnership firm of Christen & Gilbertson. As part of the consideration for the sale Christen & Gilbertson assumed and agreed to pay the indebtedness to defendant represented by the note given as above stated. Malanaphy & Daly wrote to the defendant company, giving advice of the sale, and requesting the acceptance of a note of Christen & Gilbertson in place of their obligation. This the defendant by letter declined to do. It appears, however, that a note payable to the defendant company was executed for the sum named, due November 1, 1890 with interest after maturity, signed "Christen & Gilbertson," and below, "Malanaphy & Daly," and this note was sent to the defendant company. The record is silent as to any correspondence, if such there was, subsequently had, making further reference to the subject. It sufficiently appears, however, that the defendant company was advised as to the assumption of the debt by Christen & Gilbertson, and the secretary thereof testified as a witness upon the trial that, while the company refused to accept of the later note and release Malanaphy & Daly on the former one, it did accept and hold such later note as collateral security. The firm of Christen & Gilbertson thereafter obtained goods of the defendant company on credit, and later on a judgment was recovered against said firm on such account. In February, 1892, the defendant company brought suit in the district court of Winneshiek county on the said note of Christen & Gilbertson and Malanaphy & Daly, and obtained judgment by default against Clarence Christen, one of the members of the firm of Christen & Gilbertson, and M. J. Malanaphy and James Daly, for the face amount of such note and interest accrued. In February, 1895, the defendant company accepted from said Clarence Christen the sum of $ 200, of which sum it applied $ 41.60 on said note judgment, and the balance on the judgment held by it against Christen & Gilbertson. In consideration of such payment, defendant executed and delivered to said Christen a writing whereby, as to the note judgment in question, it did "release the said Clarence Christen from any and all liability under and by virtue of said judgment, and hereby discharge said judgment of record as to said Clarence Christen, but as to the other defendants the judgment shall be and remain in full force and effect." It appears that this was done without the knowledge or consent of Malanaphy & Daly. Defendant being about to enforce collection of the balance of such note judgment by execution, this action was brought for an injunction to restrain the same, and further praying that said judgment be held as of no further effect, and for cancellation thereof. Trial being had, there was a decree in favor of plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Dan. Shea, for appellants.
W. L. Converse, for appellees.
The contention of plaintiffs in the court below was that the release of Christen from all further liability upon the judgment now sought to be enforced operated ipso facto to release both Malanaphy and Daly, and such is the argument in this court. A correct understanding of the relations of the several parties, each to the other, will serve to make clear the proper determination of the question thus presented. The defendant company having refused to accept of a note signed by Christen & Gilbertson in payment of the note held by it against Malanaphy & Daly, the latter as a matter of course, continued to be bound upon its obligation according to the terms thereof. Now, as already stated, when Malanaphy & Daly sold and transferred its property to Christen & Gilbertson, the latter, in consideration thereof, and as part payment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial