Coleman v. Ward

55 N.W. 695, 85 Wis. 328, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 284
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMay 23, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 N.W. 695 (Coleman v. Ward) 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
Coleman v. Ward, 55 N.W. 695, 85 Wis. 328, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 284 (Wis. 1893).

Opinion

PiNNEY, J.

The statute is that if there are two or more joint contractors ... no one of them shall lose the benefit of the provisions of the statute of limitations, so as to be chargeable, by reason only of any payment made by any other or others of them.” R. S. sec. 4218. This action was certainly barred unless taken out of the statute by the payment of $79.35, May 2, 1885, and it was made by and at the direction or request of the defendant Ward. The fact that the payment was made by Barrette of his own volition and without the request or direction of Ward, is made of no avail by the statute. It seems that if a joint debtor, on being called on for payment, refers the person calling on him to his codebtor for payment, this amounts to a direction to the latter to make payment for him, and if he does so the payment will be held to continue the debt from that date as to both. Cleveland v. Harrison, 15 Wis. 670; National Bank v. Cotton, 53 Wis. 31. The plaintiff’s evidence does not tend to show that the particular payment relied on was made at the request or direction of the defendant Ward. The plaintiff, in his testimony, is unable to say whether the conversation between him and Ward relied on took place before or after the payment in Question was made. He says that the conversation occurred after Barfette had left the state, and his testimony tends to show that the last indorsement was on the note when the interview took place between the plaintiff, Barrette, and defendant, in Prairie du Chien, when Barrette was going away. The evidence was not sufficient to take [332]*332the case to the jury on this question, and the direction of a verdict for the defendant was correct.

By the Gourt.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Related

Zuehlke v. Engel
282 N.W. 579 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1938)
Milroy v. Movic
63 P.2d 496 (Washington Supreme Court, 1936)
Erickson v. Husemoller
253 N.W. 361 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Kline v. Fritsch
250 N.W. 837 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1933)
Bishop v. Genz
248 N.W. 771 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1933)
Gillitzer v. Ducharme
234 N.W. 503 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 N.W. 695, 85 Wis. 328, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-ward-wis-1893.