Miller v. Poage
| Decision Date | 23 April 1881 |
| Citation | 56 Iowa 96,8 N.W. 799 |
| Parties | MILLER v. POAGE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Linn circuit court.
Action on the following instrument in writing:
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦“$100.¦AUDUBON TP., AUDUBON CO., IOWA, April 26, 1878.¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
One year after date I promise to pay to the treasurer of the National Iron Fence Company, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, or order, $100, at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, value received, with interest at 10 per cent. from date. Reasonable attorney fee if suit be instituted on this note. If this agent does not sell enough in one year, one more is granted.”
There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.Ward & Harman, for appellant.
J. W. Whittam, for appellee.
The only question to be determined is whether the instrument sued on is negotiable. The appellee insists it is not because of the italicized words. The appellant insists the instrument is not payable out of a particular fund, and is payable at the expiration of two years from its date, if not sooner, and is therefore negotiable. We think the true construction is that the maker was the agent of the payee for the sale of something, and if he realizedsufficient funds from such sales the amount specified was to be paid within one year. Payment during such time was to be made only on condition the necessary funds were realized. This clearly implies the instrument was to be paid out of a particular fund, and for this reason, and because payable only on the happening of a condition, it was not negotiable during the period aforesaid. It is true, it is payable absolutely at the expiration of two years. But we think it must have been negotiable when executed, and continuously from that time, or not at all.
No adjudicated case to which our attention has been called is precisely like this. The nearest approach to it is Cotta v. Buck, 7 Met. 588. It is difficult to draw a sharp distinction between the two cases. We shall not, therefore, make the attempt, but determine the case at bar upon principle, as we deem right. Affirmed.
I cannot concur in the foregoing opinion. It cited no authority, and is in conflict with Cotta v. Buck, 7 Met. 588, to which it refers. In my opinion, the instrument in question possesses all the elements of negotiability. The italicized portion does not render the note payable out of a particular fund, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Weber
...of payment indefinitely, there is such uncertainty as to make the same nonnegotiable. And such are the cases of Miller v. Poage, 56 Iowa, 96, 8 N. W. 799, 41 Am. Rep. 82, and Woodbury v. Roberts, 59 Iowa, 348, 13 N. W. 312, 44 Am. Rep. 685, cited and relied upon by counsel. But in the notes......
-
Quinn v. Bane
...of time of payment indefinitely, there is such uncertainty as to make the same non-negotiable. And such are the cases of Miller v. Poage, 56 Iowa 96, 8 N.W. 799, Woodbury v. Roberts, 59 Iowa 348, 13 N.W. 312, cited and relied upon by counsel. But in the notes before us, we have a distinct a......
-
Cedar Rapids National Bank v. Weber
... ... payment indefinitely, there is such uncertainty as to make ... the same non-negotiable. And such are the cases of Miller ... v. Poage, 56 Iowa 96, 8 N.W. 799, and Woodbury v ... Roberts, 59 Iowa 348, 13 N.W. 312, cited and relied upon ... by counsel. But in the ... ...
-
Quinn v. Bane
...The authorities seem in hopeless conflict as to whether such a clause renders the date of payment uncertain. Miller v. Poage, 56 Iowa, 96, 8 N. W. 799, 41 Am. Rep. 82, can hardly be said to be in point, for there the stipulation contained in the note was that, “if this agent does not sell e......