Western Wheel Scraper Co. v. Locklin

• Decision Date: 18 May 1894
• Citation: 100 Mich. 339,58 N.W. 1117
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WESTERN WHEEL SCRAPER CO. v. LOCKLIN et al.

58 N.W. 1117

100 Mich. 339

WESTERN WHEEL SCRAPER CO. v. LOCKLIN et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 18, 1894

Error to circuit court, Montcalm county; Vernon H. Smith, Judge.

Action by the Western Wheel Scraper Company against Lewis D. Locklin and 19 others on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

George H. Cagwin (Fitzgerald & Barry, of counsel) for appellant.

J. C Blanchard (Vosper Bros., of counsel), for appellees.

GRANT J.

The plaintiff is a corporation of Illinois, engaged in manufacturing and selling road scrapers and other machines for grading and repairing highways. The defendants are respectively residents of three different road districts of the township of Chrystal. Plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants one of their machines for the sum of $235, to be paid in five annual installments of $47 each. Five promissory notes were given. This suit is based upon the first note which reads as follows: "Western Wheel Scraper Co.'s Contract for Districts. $47.00. Aug. 12, 1889. June 1, after date, we, residents of districts Nos. 1, 11, and 6, in Chrystal township. Montcalm county, Mich., promise to pay to the order of Western Wheel Scraper Co. forty-seven dollars with interest at six per cent. per annum after May 1, 1890, at the Carson City Savings Bank, Carson City, Mich., for value received, first payment for one Western Reversible Road Grader, to be paid by us in proportion to road tax in above-mentioned districts on lands and property which we now own and occupy in said districts, on which we now pay road tax." (Signed by each and all of the defendants.)

The sole question is whether this note imposes a joint or several liability. We think that but one construction can be placed upon this instrument. Each maker thereby agreed to pay the amount found due in proportion to his road tax. Plaintiff's counsel argues that it is unreasonable and incredible that a business corporation should assume the determination of the amount due from each maker, and contemplate the bringing of 20 suits to collect the amount. If this be true, it would seem equally unreasonable and incredible that each maker contemplated his individual liability for the entire amount, and the bringing of 19 other suits to enforce contribution. There is no ambiguity on the face of the instrument. It creates a separate, and not a joint, liability. Judgment affirmed. The...