Vogel's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 03 April 1951
• Parties: In re VOGEL'S ESTATE. PAASCH, v. VOGEL'S ESTATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 333

47 N.W.2d 333

259 Wis. 73

In re VOGEL'S ESTATE PAASCH, v. VOGEL'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1951.

The note for $800 on which the claim is based was given by Paul Vogel and Rose Vogel, his wife. The note was given some time after a loan had been made to Paul Vogel by Frank Sommerfeldt. William Vogel appears to have become a maker by making his mark upon the note.

The note remained the property of the original payee, and after his death the administratrix seeks to collect the amount due from the estate of William Vogel, who died shortly after placing his mark on the note.

The evidence is to the effect that Paul Vogel, the son of William, entered into a rental agreement with his father under which he operated the father's farm and which bound him to pay all the expenses of operation, including interest on a mortgage, and further to provide the father with maintenance.

Paul Vogel, who was a nephew of Frank Sommerfeldt, borrowed from Sommerfeldt the sum of $800. The date of this transaction does not clearly appear, but the note was not signed until some time later, at least three weeks thereafter. The trial court decided that the debt 'is exclusively an obligation of Paul Vogel and Rose Vogel and not of the estate of William Vogel.' This decision was based on findings stated in the written opinion filed by the court that 'in the absence of any testimony that William Vogel had promised to secure the note in question at the time the money was loaned' to Paul Vogel; that 'there was no consideration for his becoming an accommodation maker at a later date.' The claim was accordingly disallowed.

Hansen & Hansen, Silver Lake, Chester D. Richardson, Kenosha, of counsel, for appellant.

E. John Wehmhoff, Burlington, Vaudreuil & Vaudreuil, Kenosha, of counsel, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

It appears that Frank Sommerfeldt loaned Paul Vogel $800. Some time later, evidently in the neighborhood of three weeks, a note was given to Sommerfeldt in the following form.

'Burlington Wisc. 1945

_____ after date I promise to pay to the order of Frank Sommerfeldt.

Eight hundred dollars $800.00 Dollars at Silver Lake Wis.

Value received with Interest at 4% per annum

Paul Vogel

No. ___ Due Wm. X Vogel. Rose Vogel'.

The evidence sustains the objection interposed by the executor, to-wit: 'that said claim is not a valid claim against the estate of William Vogel, deceased; that William Vogel received no valid consideration therefor, and that he was not indebted to said claimant.'

While formal findings were not made, the trial court did, in a written opinion which was made part of the record, state findings and conclusions and after that said: 'Wherefore it is ordered and decreed that the foregoing statement and findings be recorded and stand as the judgment of the Court upon the claims in said estate.' It is considered that under the circumstances appearing from the record there is a sufficient compliance with the statute in such case made and provided. Sec. 270.33, Wis. Stats., Adams v. Adams, 178 Wis. 522, 190 N.W. 359; United Parcel Service v. Public Service Comm., 240 Wis. 603, 4 N.W.2d 138, 5 N.W.2d 635. When the loan was made, William Vogel was not a party to the transaction. It became a completed transaction under the evidence relied upon by the court between Paul Vogel and Frank Sommerfeldt. The liability under the evidence arises out of the obligation of Paul Vogel. William Vogel's name did not become involved until later when he made his mark upon the note. Paul Vogel already had had the money for some weeks, and he had secured the same without any inducement...