Simpson Centenary Coll. v. Tuttle

• Decision Date: 07 June 1887
• Citation: 71 Iowa 596,33 N.W. 74
• Parties: SIMPSON CENTENARY COLLEGE v. TUTTLE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

71 Iowa 596

33 N.W. 74

SIMPSON CENTENARY COLLEGE

v.TUTTLE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 7, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county.

Plaintiff sues on a promissory note, which is as follows:

“ENDOWMENT NOTE, SIMPSON CENTENARY COLLEGE.

+-------------------------------------+
                ¦$500.¦INDIANOLA, IOWA, July 21, 1869.¦
                +-------------------------------------+
                

Within five years after date, I promise to pay Simpson Centenary College five hundred dollars, for value received, with eight per cent. interest, payable semi-annually, at the office of the treasurer of said college, on the first day of January and July of each year.

MARTIN TUTTLE.”

It is alleged that the whole amount is due, except that interest was paid up to January 1, 1879. There are no other allegations in the petition, except those in regard to the execution of the note and the amount due thereon, and the venue of the cause. To the petition the defendant answered-- First, admitting the execution of the note, but denying indebtedness thereon, and denies each and every other allegation of the petition; second, admitting the execution of the note, but denying the right to recover on the ground that the note was only a promise that the defendant, at a subsequent time, would make a gift of $500 to the college, and that he had received no advantage, benefit, or anything of value or consideration for the promise, and that, therefore, the note was wholly without consideration.

The third paragraph of the answer is as follows: “ Third. For further answer the defendant admits the execution of the note sued on, but says that the plaintiff ought not to recover thereon, because said note was executed as the evidence of a naked promise of the defendant to plaintiff to make it a gift of $500 in five years thereafter, to be and continue, when made, part of permanent endowment fund, which the plaintiff then had promised to it in part, and was endeavoring to procure promises for the remainder, and the defendant promised said gift to the plaintiff on condition that the principal of said fund should not be expended in whole or in part, and that the interest accruing on said fund should be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a college then in operation at the town of Indianola, Iowa, in which the academic branches of learning usually taught in such schools should be taught, and that no part of said fund, or interest thereon, should be used or expended for the purpose of establishing a professional school anywhere, or any kind of school or college at any other place than said town of Indianola. The defendant alleges that plaintiff accepted said promise coupled with said condition, without which condition and acceptance said promise would not have been made. The defendant charges that the plaintiff has violated the said conditions upon which it accepted the defendant's said promise, by expending large sums of money, obtained from defendant and others, as interest on said endowment fund, for the purpose of establishing a law school at the city of Des Moines, Iowa, twenty miles distant from the said town of Indianola. The defendant says that, by reason of the premises, he is released from his promise to make said gift, and the note in suit is wholly without consideration.”

The fourth paragraph of the petition reiterates the third paragraph in substance, and makes the further charge that plaintiff violated the oral agreement on which the promise was based “by using a portion of said permanent fund...