Quiggle v. Herman
| Decision Date | 09 April 1907 |
| Citation | 131 Wis. 379,111 N.W. 479 |
| Parties | QUIGGLE v. HERMAN ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, La Crosse County; J. J. Fruit, Judge.
Action by Milton J. Quiggle against H. Herman and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and remanded for new trial.Higbee & Higbee, for appellants.
Geo. H. Gordon, for respondent.
This is an action for a balance of $350 and interest alleged to be due upon a promissory note of $750, executed by the defendant November 27, 1903, to one Jones, and alleged to have been transferred to the plaintiff for value, before due. The defendants by their answer alleged that the note was given in part payment of the purchase price of a stallion, and that it did not bear upon its face the words, “The consideration for this note is the sale of a stallion or interest therein,” as required by chapter 438, p. 723, of the Laws of 1903. The answer further alleged in substance that said Jones at the time of such sale doped and doctored said stallion so as to make him appear sound and fraudulently represented him to be in all respects sound and a sure foal getter that would get over 80 per cent. of foals for mares served, upon which representations the defendants relied in buying said stallion, and in executing said note, whereas said stallion was in fact windbroken, and had the heaves, and was not able to get more than 40 per cent. of foals for mares served; that had the stallion been as represented, he would have been worth $1,600, whereas he was not in fact worth more than $100, and the defendants thereby sustained damages in the sum of $1,500; that at the time said note was transferred to the plaintiff he knew that the same was executed in part payment for a stallion and that the note had not upon it the words required by said chapter. The answer further alleged upon information and belief that the plaintiff at the time of said transfer knew that the stallion was fraudulently represented to be sound when sold to the defendants, and knew that he was in fact not sound, and of no value, wherefore the defendants demanded judgment, setting off their damages against the amount due on the note, and that the action be dismissed. Upon the trial the plaintiff objected to the reception of any evidence under the answer, on the ground that it stated no defense, and the objection was sustained, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff from which the defendants appeal.
We are satisfied that the ruling of the trial court was erroneous for two reasons: First. The answer alleged that the purchase of the stallion, and the giving of the note, were induced by false and fraudulent representations of soundness, by reason of which the defendants were damaged in the sum of $1,500, and that when the plaintiff purchased the note he knew of the fact that the representations were made, and that they were false when made. These allegations sufficiently charge that the plaintiff had notice of the infirmity in the instrument when he purchased it, and hence was not a holder in due course, but took the note subject to the defense of which he thus had notice. Chapter 356, pp. 705, 708, Laws 1899, §§ 1676-22, 1676-26, 1676-27. Second. The answer also alleged that the note was given as part of the purchase price of a stallion, and that the note did not bear upon its face the words required by chapter 438, p. 723, of the Laws of 1903, and that the plaintiff knew both these facts when the note was transferred to him. Section 1 of said chapter provides that all notes or evidences of debt given for any lightning rod, patent, patent right, stallion, or interest therein, shall have written or printed thereon in red ink the words, “The consideration for this note is the sale of a lightning rod, patent, patent right, stallion, or interest therein” as the case may be. Section 2 provides that any person who shall sell either of such named chattels, who shall take a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Wausau St. Ry. Co. v. Bancroft
...W. 737, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932;Quiggle v. Herman, 131 Wis. 379, 111 N. W. 479;Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 Sup. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439;Ambrosini v. U. S., 187 U. S. 1, 23 Sup. Ct. 1, 47 L. Ed......
-
Kiley v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...of the other provisions of the law. State ex rel. v. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45, 9 N. W. 791;State ex rel. v. Main, 16 Wis. 398;Quiggle v. Herman, 131 Wis. 379, 111 N. W. 479;Ill. Cent. Ry. Co. v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514, 27 Sup. Ct. 153, 51 L. Ed. 298. The point is made that the provisions of sub......
-
Hezzie R., In Interest of
...whole statute must be held void. Muench v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 261 Wis. 492, 515o, 55 N.W.2d 40 (1952)(quoting Quiggle v. Herman, 131 Wis. 379, 382, 111 N.W. 479 (1907)). ¶14 This test for severability has been consistently applied in The factors to consider in deciding whether a statute s......
-
In the Interest of Hezzie R. v. Hezzie R., No. 97-0676 (Wis. 7/3/1998)
...the whole statute must be held void. Muench v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 261 Wis. 492, 515o, 55 N.W.2d 40 (1952)(quoting Quiggle v. Herman, 131 Wis. 379, 382, 111 N.W. 479 (1907)). ¶ 14 This test for severability has been consistently applied in The factors to consider in deciding whether a stat......