Patterson v. Wright

• Decision Date: 13 October 1885
• Citation: 64 Wis. 389,25 N.W. 10
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: PATTERSON v. WRIGHT.

64 Wis. 389

25 N.W. 10

PATTERSON

v.WRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed October 13, 1885.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county.Johnson, Riebrock & Halsey, for respondent, John Q. Patterson.

Adolph Herdegen, for appellant, Edward Wright.

ORTON, J.

The respondent, the plaintiff in the circuit court, declared upon two promissory notes given by the defendant to one L. D. Sawyer, April 1, 1868, to become due April 1, 1878,--one for $1,500 and the other for $1,000, interest payable annually,--and it is alleged that said notes were transferred to him before due and for value. The answer denies the transfer of the notes before due, for value, and alleges in substance that in the year 1865 he, the defendant, and said Sawyer jointly owned a mill, which was insured for $6,000, and afterwards, in August, 1866, it was burned up, and the balance of the insurance money due the firm, after paying certain liens, was the sum of $2,640, which said Sawyer received and applied to his own use. The mill was rebuilt, and the defendant purchased of Sawyer his undivided one-half thereof and his interest in the partnership for $3,000, and gave him therefor the two notes in suit and another note for $500, which was overdue when the plaintiff bought the notes in suit, and Sawyer has never paid the $2,640, or any part thereof, and the defendant claims that that sum is now due, together with interest, and also alleges an offset for goods sold and delivered to said Sawyer of $500. The answer then alleges that said $2,640, or the promise to pay the same, was a part of the consideration of said notes, and that such promise was a fraudulent representation upon which the notes were obtained, and claims that said notes are subject to such equity. On the trial the plaintiff proved that he purchased said notes before due and paid value therefor. The defendant made repeated offers to prove the original transaction between himself and said Sawyer, which were denied by the court on objection on the ground that the defendant must first show that the notes were transferred after due or for no value, which he failed to do. He then made an effort to prove the plaintiff's knowledge of such transaction, and in part by the testimony of his attorneys, which last testimony was ruled out as being privileged and betraying confidence. There was no evidence that the plaintiff had such knowledge. He then sought to show that the plaintiff became the owner of the $500 note also, which was overdue, as notice of the dishonor of the notes in suit. He failed to show this, but did show that the plaintiff once had said note in his hands, for collection merely.

This statement presents the whole case, and suggests the alleged errors. The jury was instructed that the plaintiff was the bona fide holder of the notes, and entitled to a verdict for the amount thereof, with interest. There are numerous exceptions and many points made and argued in the brief of the learned counsel of the...