E. Walther v. Briggs

• Decision Date: 23 June 1897
• Docket Number: 10,634--(142)
• Parties: E. WALTHER and Another v. WARREN S. BRIGGS
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

71 N.W. 909

69 Minn. 98

E. WALTHER and Another v. WARREN S. BRIGGS

Nos. 10,634--(142)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 23, 1897

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Willis, J., denying his motion for a new trial. Reversed.

Order reversed.

A. G Briggs, for appellant.

James E. Trask, for respondents.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

The issue of fact at the trial of this action was as to the terms and conditions of the agreement made between the payees of the note, owners and holders thereof, and defendant, a few months after the note matured; the latter contending that in consideration of his agreement to pay, and subsequent payment of, the interest then due upon the note for $ 3,000, secured by first mortgage upon the thirteen lots, to the owner and holder of said note and mortgage, who was threatening immediate foreclosure, said payees agreed to release and discharge him from all personal liability upon the note in suit, to rely for the payment of said note solely upon the second mortgage on these thirteen lots, and also agreed to satisfy their mortgage lien on the other lots, two in number. In the most positive manner the payees denied that they agreed to release or discharge defendant from his personal liability upon their note. It was undisputed, however, that within a few weeks after an agreement of some kind had been entered into between these parties, defendant paid the interest in question, took his receipt therefor to one of these payees, and received from him a partial release, by which the two lots were discharged from the mortgage lien.

Without expressing any opinion as to the weight of the evidence presented on this issue, we are compelled to hold that defendant made a case for the jury; the only question being as to the sufficiency of the consideration, as testified to by him, for an agreement to release and discharge him from all personal liability upon the note. The court below held that the only consideration claimed was insufficient to uphold such an agreement. We cannot concur in this view.

The note upon which defendant was to, and did, pay the interest, was not his personal obligation. It was, with the first mortgage securing it, executed and delivered prior to defendant's purchase of the mortgaged property. According to the testimony, he did not assume its payment when he purchased the property and received a deed of conveyance. He therefore stipulated with the payees of his note to pay interest to a stranger...