Musser v. Stauffer

• Decision Date: 19 July 1899
• Docket Number: 182
• Citation: 43 A. 1018,192 Pa. 398
• Parties: Henry C. Musser v. Samuel D. Stauffer, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

43 A. 1018

192 Pa. 398

Henry C. Musser v. Samuel D. Stauffer, Appellant

No. 182

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 19, 1899

Argued May 19, 1898

Appeal, No. 182, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1895, No. 49, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on promissory notes.

The plaintiff's statement shows that on the 11th day of November, 1890, he sold the defendant at Roanoke, Virginia eight lots of ground in the city of Roanoke in the state of Virginia; in consideration of which the defendant assumed and agreed to pay as part of the purchase money twelve notes of $83.33 and four of $83.34, which notes had been made by the plaintiff and were payable to and held by the Melrose Land Company of Roanoke, Virginia, amounting in the aggregate to $13,333.32, and in further consideration for the sale of said lots, the defendant gave the plaintiff sixteen promissory notes, dated said 11th day of November, 1890, for $33.33 each, eight of which were payable in one year from date and eight in two years from date. Defendant having neglected and refused to pay eleven of the notes assumed by him plaintiff was compelled to pay them; and he claimed for the amount of said eleven notes which he had been compelled to pay to the Melrose Land Company and for the sixteen notes which defendant had given him. The notes were executed in Virginia and were to be paid in Virginia. See Musser v Stauffer, 178 Pa. 99.

Other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court:

At the trial, defendant, under the plea of payment, offered to prove by Samuel D. Stauffer, to be followed by the testimony of another witness to the same effect, that "H. C. Musser agreed with Samuel D. Stauffer, subsequently to the execution of the notes, that, if the arrangement would be made with the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster to enable him to pay the notes by retaining money which he was to collect from the Roanoke Steam Generator Company, he would collect the money from the Roanoke Steam Generator Company; and such arrangement was made with the Lancaster Steam Generator Company." [3]

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant.

The defendant offered to prove, by his own testimony, that at the time the notes on which this suit was brought were executed and delivered to plaintiff and at the time the agreement was made by defendant to assume the notes given by plaintiff to the Melrose Land Company, there was a contemporaneous parol agreement between the parties to the effect that the said notes should not be paid nor their collection enforced otherwise than by deduction on the part of Musser, of their amount from certain moneys to be paid by him on behalf of the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, Virginia, in which he was interested as a stockholder, to the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in which Stauffer was a stockholder, and that Stauffer was induced to sign them by said agreement.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [6]

The defendant offered to prove that, at the time of the execution and delivery of the notes in suit, and of the deed in trust from Stauffer to Musser, and of the deed from Musser and wife to Stauffer, which have been offered in evidence, Musser agreed with Stauffer that the said notes and his assumption to pay the other notes were not to be paid by Stauffer till Musser had collected certain moneys owing by the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, in which said Musser was interested, to the Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, in which Stauffer was interested, and were then to be deducted from the said moneys by Musser, and that he was not to look for or receive payment for such obligations in any other way.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [7]

The defendant offered to prove that, at the time of the execution of said notes and contract, namely, on April 1, 1891, in the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Musser agreed that Stauffer should never actually pay him any moneys on said notes, but that he would rely solely on the mortgage deed in trust which he had on said lands, unless and until he had collected for the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $45,000 about due on a certain contract with the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, Virginia, and $80,000 due to the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, and the transfer and assignment of certain patents and territorial rights; to be followed by proof of such contracts between said companies and by evidence that said companies had ratified, approved and confirmed said agreements between Musser and Stauffer.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [8]

The defendant offered to prove that the contract for the purchase of certain lots in Roanoke, Virginia, previously offered in evidence, and dated Roanoke, Virginia, November 11, 1890, marked "H.C.B. 9," was actually made and delivered to Musser in the state of Pennsylvania.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [9]

The defendant offered to prove that, at the time the deed in trust from Stauffer to Musser was executed, and, at the time of the execution of the notes in suit, Musser agreed that these notes and the obligations to assume other notes contained in the deed of trust and on which this suit was brought need not be paid by Stauffer till Musser had collected and paid over moneys due and owing from the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, Virginia, in which he, Musser, was interested, to the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in which Stauffer was interested as a stockholder, and that, when said moneys were thus collected by Musser and paid over, the amount of these notes and obligations should be deducted therefrom; to be followed by proof that this arrangement was known to, ratified, confirmed and approved by said Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, Virginia; to be followed by other proof that Stauffer was interested as a stockholder to the amount of one fourth of the entire capital stock of the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [10]

The defendant offered to prove that the arrangement and promise of Musser, referred to in the foregoing offer, were the inducement and consideration upon which he signed said notes and assumed payment of the notes from Musser to the Melrose Land Company, referred to in the deed of trust.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [11]

The defendant renewed the two foregoing offers of testimony, to be followed by proof of corroborating circumstances and the testimony of two other witnesses who heard the conversation between Musser and Stauffer at the time of the execution of said notes and deed in trust.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [12]

The defendant offered to prove that, at the time of the execution of said deed of trust and notes, Musser agreed that Stauffer need not actually pay to him any moneys on said notes or on the assumption to pay the notes of Musser to the Melrose Land Company; but that, in case he failed to collect the moneys owing from the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, Virginia, to the Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and to deduct therefrom the amount of said notes and obligations, he would rely solely on the deed in trust which he had taken and on the security of the land which it covered.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [13]

The defendant offered to prove that, at the time the notes on which this suit was brought were executed and delivered to plaintiff, and at the time the agreement was made by defendant to assume the notes given by plaintiff to the Melrose Land Company there was a contemporaneous parol agreement between the parties, to the effect that the said notes should not be paid nor their collection enforced otherwise than by deduction on the part of Musser of their amount from certain moneys to be paid by him on behalf of the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Roanoke, Virginia, in which he was interested as a stockholder, to the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in which Stauffer was a stockholder, and that Stauffer was induced to sign them by said agreement.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [14]

The defendant offered to prove that, at the special instance and request of H. C. Musser, the defendant induced the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster to agree that H. C. Musser should retain, out of the moneys that he was to collect for it, the amount of these notes made by the defendant and assumed by him, and that Musser agreed that, if such action were taken by the Lancaster Steam Generator Company, he would look for payment of the notes to the money he was to so collect for it.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [15]

The defendant offered to prove that the Lancaster Steam Generator Company did agree that Mr. Musser should retain for the payment of said notes moneys which he had collected or was to collect for it.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [16]

The defendant offered to prove, to be followed by the testimony of another witness to the same effect, that H. C. Musser agreed with Samuel D. Stauffer, subsequently to the execution of the notes, that, if the arrangement would be made with the Monitor Steam Generator Company of Lancaster to enable him to pay the notes by retaining money which he was to collect from the Roanoke Generator Company, he would collect the money from the Roanoke Generator Company; and such arrangement was made by the Lancaster Steam Generator Company.

Disallowed. Bill sealed for defendant. [17]

Verdict...