Hale v. Danforth
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Wwmebago County. The action was against defendant as indorser of a promissory note made by one Finney.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Wwmebago County. The action was against defendant as indorser of a promissory note made by one Finney. Payment of tbe note was not demanded of tbe maker at maturity; but tbe complaint contains averments of fact to excuse sucb demand, one of wbicb is to tbe effect tliat on tbe day before tbe note matured, plaintiff, by bis duly authorized agent, Mary Hale, bis wife, presented tbe note in suit to defendant, wbo, with full knowledge of all tbe circumstances, agreed to pay it when called upon to do so. A similar conversation between tbe plaintiff’ in person and…
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, J.
In Birdsall v. Dunn, 16 Wis., 235, it was held that a wife, acting as tbe agent of her husband, is a competent witness for him as to all business transacted by her within the scope of her employment.
If Mrs. Hale was a competent witness for her husband in the present case, it is because her testimony is within the rule there laid down. Does the rule extend to this case? Mrs. Hale was authorized merely to ash the defendant if he was going to pay the note in suit. There her authority ceased. The most that she could do within the scope of her employment was, to put the question to the defendant,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Birdsall v. DunnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by4 opinions
- Blabon v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Fish v. BloodworthSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Hein v. MildebrandtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Kiepert v. NugentWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913