Stout v. Watson

• Decision Date: 27 February 1891
• Citation: 48 N.W. 195,45 Minn. 454
• Parties: STOUT v WATSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 454

48 N.W. 195

STOUTvWATSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 27, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where, upon the execution of a promissory note, the payee, as part of the contract, indorsed an agreement upon the note whereby it was promised and agreed that, in case the maker of the note should erect a dwelling-house upon the lot therein described on or before a certain date, the note should be canceled, held, that the right to cancel the note in this way was a privilege or option to be exercised within the time limited, and, unless extended, the privilege would lapse, and the note become absolute.

2. But a voluntary extension of the privilege, if acted on within the time thereby limited, the terms whereof are complied with, will from that time be binding upon the parties, and be deemed to rest upon a sufficient consideration.

3. Whether there was such extension in this case held a question for the jury.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; SEARLES, Judge.

C. H. Benedict, for appellant.

John B. & W. H. Sanborn, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the sale to him of certain building lots at a price named, with an additional stipulation as follows: “It is also agreed and understood that the said Watson shall execute a note for $375.00, payable on or before six months, said note to stipulate that if said Watson builds a residence on lot 24, and W. 1/2 lot 25, then said note to be canceled, but, in case he should not build, the note to remain in force.” This contract bore date June 28, 1887. In pursuance thereof, and on or about July 12, 1887, the defendant executed to the plaintiff the note sued on, which was antedated by agreement, its date as written being April 12, 1887, and upon it was indorsed the agreement referred to in the complaint, signed by plaintiff, wherein it was stipulated that in case the defendant should erect a dwelling-house on the aforementioned lot on or before April 12, 1888, then the note should be canceled. The time was extended to July 1, 1888, in writing, indorsed on the note, and plaintiff also testifies that he gave a subsequent verbal extension for 30 days, but that nothing was done towards building the house within that time.

1. The note and indorsement must be construed together, and the effect of the contract was to limit the time within which defendant might satisfy or cancel the note by building a house upon the land specified....