Marschuetz v. Wright
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAR from the Circuit Court for Door County. The action is on an account for goods sold and delivered by the assignors of the plaintiffs to the defendant. The answer admits the purchase of the goods at the prices charged, but avers payment therefor.
Read the full summary
APPEAR from the Circuit Court for Door County. The action is on an account for goods sold and delivered by the assignors of the plaintiffs to the defendant. The answer admits the purchase of the goods at the prices charged, but avers payment therefor. It appears by the evidence that in June, 1875, the plaintiffs demanded payment of the account from the defendant, who, being then unable to pay it, turned out to the plaintiffs a promissory note for $150, given to him by one Hunt. The defendant indorsed the note, and waived protest and notice. One of the plaintiffs testified that they received…
1Opinion of the CourtLxosr, J.
1. The testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the Hunt note was transferred to them as collateral security. There is no such satisfactory preponderance of testimony to the contrary as will authorize us to reverse the finding of the circuit judge that it was so transferred.
2. We are satisfied with the finding that, after the note became due, it probably could not have been collected by legal process; certainly not without extraordinary diligence. True, when the note matured, Hunt had some property in his hands liable to seizure on execution; but some of it was under mortgage (what…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Flanders v. CottrellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Plant's Manufacturing Co. v. FalveyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by5 opinions
- Beach v. WakefieldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Bowers v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- First National Bank of Fort Dodge v. O'ConnellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Willow River Lumber Co. v. Luger Furniture Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Ball v. McGeochWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890