Case ID: wis_91/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NewmaN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Challoner and another, Appellants, vs. Boyington and another, Respondents.
    
      September 6
    
    September 26, 1895.
    
    
      Sale of chattels: Acceptance of note of third person.
    
    Where, at the time of the acceptance of goods sold on trial, the vendor accepts the negotiable note of a third person for the price, the presumption is that such note is taken in payment.
    
      Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eond du Lac county: N. S. G-ilsoN, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      ■ A full statement of the facts in this case will be found in 83 Wis. 399, except that since the former trial the answer has been amended by adding the allegation that “the plaintiffs accepted the negotiable notes of the Cypress Lumber Company in payment for such machinery.” There is no need for a new statement of facts. There was a trial by the court without a jury, and a finding and judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appeal.
    
      M. C. Phillips, attorney, and Charles W. Fellcer, of counsel, for the appellants.
    For the respondents there was a brief by Cate, Jones cb Scmborn, and oral argument by D. Lloyd Jones.
    
   NewmaN, J.

The trial court made no finding on the issue as to whether the machinery was sold to the defendants. It will not be unfair towards the plaintiffs to assume, for the purposes of this decision, that the sale was to the defendants. This assumption is in harmony with the allegations of their complaint. If their claim was against the defendants, then, by all the authorities, it was paid and extinguished by their acceptance of the negotiable notes of the Cypress Lumber Company. This is very clearly stated and shown in the former opinion. There is no need for a further discussion or citation of authorities.

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