McCormick Harvesting Machine Company v. Yoeman
| Decision Date | 26 March 1901 |
| Docket Number | 3,380 |
| Parties | MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACHINE COMPANY v. YOEMAN |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Daviess Circuit Court.
Reversed.
M. S Hastings, J. G. Allen and J. C. Billheimer, for appellant.
W. S Hoover, C. B. Kelley, J. H. O'Neall and W. F. Hoffman for appellee.
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 it 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 that 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 extend was made. Brown v. Bank, 115 Ind. 572, 18 N.E. 56; Jaqua v. Montgomery, 33 Ind. 36, 5 Am. Rep. 168; Henry v. Gilliland, 103 Ind. 177, 2 N.E. 360. See, also, Doherty v. Bell, 55 Ind. 205.
The evidence also fails to support the verdict upon another material proposition, which is the basis of appellee's defense. As above stated, appellee's answer is based upon a breach of a warranty. The warranty relied upon is in writing, and was contained in a written order signed by appellee and delivered to appellant. In the written order is this language: This is the only warranty embraced in the order. In his answer, appellee pleaded: "That said representations and warranty, as stated in said written order, were made as an inducement to defendant to buy said machine and execute said note, and that defendant was thus induced to buy said machine and to execute said note defendant at the time being wholly ignorant of the character and usefulness of said machine, he purchased the same upon the aforesaid warranty and...
To continue reading
Request your trial