Napa Valley Wine Company v. Daubner

• Decision Date: 03 December 1895
• Docket Number: 9695--(143)
• Parties: NAPA VALLEY WINE COMPANY v. ARTHUR E. DAUBNER
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

65 N.W. 143

63 Minn. 112

NAPA VALLEY WINE COMPANY v. ARTHUR E. DAUBNER

Nos. 9695--(143)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 3, 1895

Action in the district court for Clay county to recover a balance of $ 286.91 due for goods sold and delivered. The summons was dated July 13, and was served July 14, 1893. The complaint alleged that the price of the goods was $ 1,003.97 and admitted payments made between September 30, 1891, and January 9, 1892, amounting to $ 717.06. The answer alleged that March 11, 1892, plaintiff, together with substantially all the other creditors of defendant, for a valuable consideration, entered into an agreement with defendant whereby plaintiff extended the time of payment of the balance of the amount set forth in the complaint as follows: 25 per cent. until August, 1892; 25 per cent. until December 25 1892; 25 per cent. until April 15, 1893; and 25 per cent until September 15, 1893. The answer also alleged a payment of $ 118.75 on January 7, 1892, and another payment of $ 100 on March 11, 1892. The reply admitted the agreement set forth in the answer, but alleged that defendant had wholly failed to comply with it, and also alleged that the payments set forth in the answer had been duly credited to defendant and were included in the sum of $ 717.06 admitted in the complaint to have been paid. Upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits filed by plaintiff to show that the balance as stated in the complaint was correct, the court, Baxter, J ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff; and from a judgment entered in pursuance thereof in favor of plaintiff for $ 286.91 principal and $ 60 interest, with costs, defendant appealed. Modified.

W. B Douglas, for appellant.

C. A. Nye, for respondent.

COLLINS J. MITCHELL, J., concurring. CANTY, J., concurs with MITCHELL, J.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

According to the allegations of the complaint and the admissions in the answer in this action, there was no dispute as to the sale and delivery by plaintiff to defendant of the merchandise, or as to the reasonable value of the same; and, also, that payment in full therefor had not been made. But, from the allegations of the answer and the admissions found in the reply, it clearly appeared that, after the maturity of the debt, plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, agreed with defendant to postpone and extend the time for the payment of the balance due, -- one-fourth of such balance to be paid in August following; another fourth, December 25; another fourth, April 15 of the year following; and the remainder, September 15. No payments whatever had been made upon this balance, and this action, to recover the entire amount due before...