Schoonover v. Osborne Bros.
Decision Date | 18 May 1899 |
Citation | 79 N.W. 263,108 Iowa 453 |
Parties | L. SCHOONOVER v. OSBORNE BROS., WILLIAM M. OSBORNE, LEWIS D. OSBORNE, and DAVID OSBORNE, Appellants |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jones District Court.--HON. W. G. THOMPSON, Judge.
ACTON against defendants, Osborne Bros., William M. Osborne, Lewis D. Osborne, and David Osborne, on a promissory note, and for the amount of an account against Osborne Bros., William M Osborne, and Lewis D. Osborne, which it is claimed defendant David Osborne guarantied. The action was aided by attachment which it is claimed was levied upon all the property of the defendants. Defendants Osborne Bros., William M. Osborne, and Lewis D. Osborne pleaded usury, and also a counterclaim on the attachment bond. Defendant David Osborne denied the allegations of the petition; alleged that, if he signed the note and guaranty bond sued on, he was not in his right mind when he did so, and that there was no consideration therefor and further alleged that he made no guaranty to plaintiff but that his guaranty, if any, was to the firm of Shaw & Schoonover. He also alleged that his liability on the guaranty, if any, has been extinguished by payment of the principal obligation, and further pleaded a counterclaim on the attachment bond. On the issues thus joined the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of thirty-two thousand and forty-six dollars and sixty-four cents. Defendants appeal.--Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
REVERSED.
Sheean & McCarn, M. W. Herrick, F. O. Ellison and Jamison & Smyth for appellants.
Remley, Ney & Remley and Ercanbeck & Lawrence for appellee.
Prior to June 28, 1894, Shaw & Schoonover was a co-partnership consisting of W. T. Shaw and plaintiff, doing a banking business in the city of Anamosa, Iowa. On that day the firm was dissolved, and plaintiff purchased, and became the sole owner of, the assets of the firm. Osborne Bros. is also a co-partnership, engaged in the livery business, and in the buying and selling of stock. Its members were William M. and Lewis D. Osborne. This co-partnership had been doing business with the firm of Shaw & Schoonover for many years prior to its dissolution, and continued to do business with plaintiff thereafter, and until the commencement of this suit. The note on which the action in part is based is for ten thousand dollars, and was executed by Osborne Bros. and David Osborne, the other defendant, on the first day of January, 1891. The account which is the other part of plaintiff's cause of action is for money advanced Osborne Bros. by Shaw & Schoonover, and by Schoonover individually, covering a period of years from August 5, 1882, down to August 5, 1896, and the balance claimed to be due is seventeen thousand two hundred and six dollars and thirty-one cents. Plaintiff seeks to charge defendant David Osborne with the payment of this account by reason of the following instrument of guaranty: The account covers interest items amounting to nearly eleven thousand dollars, which it is claimed were charged from time to time on daily balances, with the knowledge and consent of Osborne Bros. These charges were made at the rate of ten per cent. until the legal rate by contract was changed to eight and after that at eight per cent. There never was any written agreement by Osborne Bros. to pay any rate per cent. as interest. The account that Shaw & Schoonover had with Osborne Bros. was never closed, but was continued after plaintiff succeeded to the interests of his firm just as it had been prior to that date. Osborne Bros. were charged with checks drawn on the bank, and with interest, and credited with the deposits, just as if there had been no change in the membership of the banking firm. After Schoonover succeeded to the business of that firm, Osborne Bros. deposited more than twenty thousand dollars, which was credited to their account. At the time of the dissolution of the firm they were indebted to it in the sum of sixteen thousand five hundred and eighty-five dollars and eighty-five cents, as shown by the books of the bank. Defendant David Osborne asked instructions to the effect that, if the jury found his mental condition was such at the time he signed the note and guaranty that he did not know what he was doing, their verdict should be for him. He further requested the court to charge that he was not liable on the guaranty for money advanced by plaintiff, and that, if Osborne Bros. made payments on their account after the dissolution of the firm of Shaw & Schoonover which equaled or exceeded the amount due that firm at the time of its dissolution their verdict should be for him, in so far as the account was concerned. Some other instructions were asked, which it is not necessary to refer to at length. The court refused these instructions, and charged the jury that plaintiff was entitled to rely on the letter of guaranty, and that David Osborne was responsible to him for the amount of his account against Osborne Bros.
As there was no evidence of David Osborne's mental incapacity, the court was right in not submitting that question to the jury. The other propositions are of more difficulty; and the first is, is defendant David Osborne liable to plaintiff on a guaranty made to Shaw & Schoonover? Announcement of a few elementary principles of law will help to solve this question: A contract of guaranty or suretyship is said to be strictissimi juris, and one in which the guarantor has the right to prescribe the exact terms upon which he will enter into the obligation, and to insist on his discharge if those terms are not observed. It is not a question whether he is harmed by a deviation to which he has not assented. He may plant himself on the technical obligation: Barns v. Barrow, 61 N.Y. 39; Kingsbury v. Westfall, 61 N.Y. 356; Fellows v. Prentiss, 3 Denio 512; Allison v Rutledge, 13 Tenn. 193, 5 Yer. 193; Bussier v. Chew, 5 Phila. 70; Penoyer v. Watson, 16 Johns. 100. 1 Brandt Suretyship (2d ed.), 134, 135; People v. Chalmers, 60 N.Y. 154; State v. Churchill, 48 Ark. 426 (3 S.W. 352, 3 S.W. 880). Again it has been said: In applying these rules courts have usually held that a guaranty addressed to a particular person can only be acted upon and enforced by that party. See Taylor v. Wetmore, 10 Ohio 490; Bank v. Diefendorf, 90 Ill. 396; Crane Co. v. Specht, 39 Neb. 123 (57 N.W. 1015); Penoyer v. Watson, 16 Johns. 100. Thus, in Smith v. Montgomery, 3 Tex. 199, the defendant wrote and forwarded a letter of credit, as follows: This was addressed on the back to Smith alone. Smith and Pilgrim had been partners in business, but a short time before had dissolved partnership. The letter, on the back, being addressed to Smith alone, it was delivered to him, and he supplied the goods to Tennard, who failed to make payment; and suit was brought to recover from Montgomery, as guarantor. The court, in deciding the case, says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial