Northern Minnesota Dairy Farm Land Co. v. Haswell

189 N.W. 263, 177 Wis. 635, 1922 Wisc. LEXIS 304
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided July 8, 1922·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Crownhart, J.

The agreement made between the parties, as found by the court, was not an agreement to cancel a debt, but was simply part payment and extension of time for the balance, with the substitution of a negotiable promissory note in place of the judgment. Part payment of a debt and the substitution of one form of evidence thereof for another, or the canceling of one evidence of debt and the taking of a new evidence of debt and extension of time for payment, is a common, every-day commercial transaction, based on sufficient consideration.

The executive officers, of a corporation are presumed to have authority to carry on its ordinary business. In this case the corporation received the new evidence of debt and the part payment and retained the same for several years. Whether or not the officers had original authority, it is perfectly plain that their acts were ratified, and the corporation cannot now be heard to say that they did not have authority.

[637]*637The plaintiff contends that there was no agreement as claimed by the defendant, but the finding of the court is based upon sufficient credible evidence, and for that reason it cannot be disturbed by this court.

By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Northern Minnesota Dairy Farm Land Co. v. Haswell, 189 N.W. 263, 177 Wis. 635, 1922 Wisc. LEXIS 304 (Wis. 1922).

189 N.W. 263 (Northern Minnesota Dairy Farm Land Co. v. Haswell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

May Tire & Service, Inc. v. Sinclair Refining Co.
3 N.W.2d 347 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1942)
Hinkley Co. v. Gerlinger Electric Steel Casting Co.
227 N.W. 308 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)