McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Yoeman

Citation26 Ind.App. 415,59 N.E. 1069
PartiesMcCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO. v. YOEMAN.
Decision Date26 March 1901
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

26 Ind.App. 415
59 N.E. 1069

McCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO.
v.
YOEMAN.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

March 26, 1901.


Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county; H. G. Houghton, Judge.

Action by the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company against Eneas F. Yoeman. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.


Hastings, Allen & Bilheimer, for appellant. Hoover & Kelly and O'Neal & Hoffman, for appellee.

WILEY, J.

This was an action by appellant against appellee on a promissory note. The note was given for a corn-harvesting machine. Appellant gave appellee a written warranty upon the machine sold. Appellee's answer pleaded a breach of the warranty. Appellant replied, in substance, that after the maturity of the note, and while it was attempting to collect it, and while appellee was claiming that he had some defense to it, appellee and appellant entered into an agreement by which, in consideration of extending the time of payment until a definite day, and by way of settlement and compromise, appellee agreed to pay upon said note $25 cash, or to pay it in a few days, which he did, and pay the balance at the expiration of the extension of time, keep the machine, and make no further defense to the note. Upon the issues thus formed the cause was submitted to a jury for trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee. Appellant's motion for a new trial, which was overruled, questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. Appellant's reply was held good against a demurrer.

The evidence abundantly sustains every material fact pleaded in the reply. Upon such facts there is no conflict in the evidence. The appellee himself testified that after the maturity of the note he agreed with appellant that, if he would extend the time of payment, he would pay upon the note $25 in cash, pay the balance at the expiration of the time of extension, and not make any further defense. He also testified that when said agreement was made he claimed to have a defense against the note by reason of a breach of the warranty. It is the settled law in this state that where the maker of a promissory note agrees with the payee that, if the latter will extend the time of payment for a definite time, he will pay the same at the expiration of said period, and the time is so extended, such promise of the maker constitutes a new contract, binding in law, and capable of enforcement, though the maker may have had a good defense to such note before the agreement to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT