Whiffen v. Hollister
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county. Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge- Action on promissory note. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The agreement of extension, being in writing, implied a consideration and was sufficient to.sustain the plaintiffs promise, § 3538, Comp.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county. Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge- Action on promissory note. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The agreement of extension, being in writing, implied a consideration and was sufficient to.sustain the plaintiffs promise, § 3538, Comp. Laws Subd. 2 and 3; Corbett v. Clough, 8 S. D., 176; 65 N. W., 1074. Testimony offered to prove the conditions under which the sheri ff’s certificate was assigned, was proper and not within the staute oí frauds. § 3562, Comp. Laws; 1 G-reenl Ev. §§ 286-289; Pierce v. Parker, 4…
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
This is an action on a promissory note executed by the defendant, Hollister, to the plaintiff. The defendant admitted the execution of the note, and set up the fol lowing defense: That, by an agreement made and entered into in writing between the plaintiff and the defendant, it was agreed that upon the payment of the sum of $35 interest on November 7, 1897, the time of payment of said note should be extended to May 7, 1898, which sum the defendant thereupon paid to the plaintiff upon the said date, and thereby the time of payment of the said note was extended to May 7, 1898, which time was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- D. M. Osborne & Co. v. StringhamSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- Noyes v. BraceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. JensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007