Dolph v. Rice
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action on a bank check drawn by defendant in plaintiff’s favor, September 17, 1868, and payment of which was refused by the bank at defendant’s request. • The answer alleges in substance, that in June, 1863, Dorcas S. Rice, the wife of defendant, and the plaintiff, who held certain farming lands as her tenant, entered into a written agreement, by which the latter was to cultivate and harvest the crop on said lands, cut the…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action on a bank check drawn by defendant in plaintiff’s favor, September 17, 1868, and payment of which was refused by the bank at defendant’s request. • The answer alleges in substance, that in June, 1863, Dorcas S. Rice, the wife of defendant, and the plaintiff, who held certain farming lands as her tenant, entered into a written agreement, by which the latter was to cultivate and harvest the crop on said lands, cut the Ray &c. &e., and. have one half of all''crops raised, and deliver the other half to Mrs. Rice; and Mrs. Rice was to pay…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
The counsel for the defendant assumes that the matters stated in the answer show that the check sued upon was without consideration. In view of the facts there set up, it can hardly be successfully maintained that no consideration in law was received for the check. The account against Mrs. Rice was liquidated by the acceptance of the defendant’s note. It is so stated in the answer. Suppose the defendant was acting as the agent of his wife; yet if he saw fit to give his individual note for the satisfaction of a debt of his principal, or for a forbearance of that debt, a sufficient…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hiner v. NewtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872