Breitengross v. Farr

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Breitengross v. Farr

75 N.W. 893, 100 Wis. 215, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 200

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 75 N.W. 893 (Breitengross v. Farr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Breitengross v. Farr, 75 N.W. 893, 100 Wis. 215, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 200 (Wis. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

This is an action brought by the second in-dorser of a promissory note against Ensign, the maker, and Farr, the first indorser, thereof; the second indorser having' paid the note on account of the failure of the maker to pay the same. The appellant, Farr, answered admitting his in-dorsement, but alleging that he indorsed it without consideration, solely at the request and for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and introduced evidence tending to show that [216]*216fact. The court, however, directed a verdict for the plaintiff, apparently on the ground that it was not competent to prove by parol that Farr was an accommodation indorser. This was error. It is well settled that one who in fact signed or indorsed commercial paper for the accommodation of another may show that fact by parol, in an action brought against him by such other. Kiel v. Choate, 92 Wis. 517; Story, Prom. Notes, § 479; 2 Jones, Ev. § 509. The question whether Fa/rr indorsed the paper for the accommodation of the plaintiff should have been submitted to the jury.

By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Winslow, J.

This is an action brought by the second in-dorser of a promissory note against Ensign, the maker, and Farr, the first indorser, thereof; the second indorser having' paid the note on account of the failure of the maker to pay the same. The appellant, Farr, answered admitting his in-dorsement, but alleging that he indorsed it without consideration, solely at the request and for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and introduced evidence tending to show that [216]*216fact. The court, however, directed a verdict for the plaintiff, apparently on the ground that it was not competent to prove by parol that Farr was an accommodation indorser. This was error. It is well settled that one who in fact signed or indorsed commercial paper for the accommodation of another may show that fact by parol, in an action brought against him by such other. Kiel v. Choate, 92 Wis. 517; Story, Prom. Notes, § 479; 2 Jones, Ev. § 509. The question whether Fa/rr indorsed the paper for the accommodation of the plaintiff should have been submitted to the jury.

By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.W. 893, 100 Wis. 215, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breitengross-v-farr-wis-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack