Daily globe., 1879-03-21
IN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Notes Given In Payment for Agricultural
and Other Machinery Are Not Negotiable
Commercial Papers-SO Holds tho Su-
preme Court of Minnesota.
The decision Of the supreme court in the
case of the Third National bank, of Syracuse
N. Y, against Daniel Armstrong, which was
vast numbers of farmers and other pur-
ohasers of machinery of various kinds, that
we feel justified in furnishing for the readers
of the GLOBE a full report.
The persistency of "machine agents. in
pressing sales of the various wares repre-
sented by them, and the wonderful in
genuity and sharpness of manufacturers and
''agents'' in procuring the signatures of pur-
chasers to the most wonderfully constructed
"notes," 'leases," and s'contracts,'' is we'll
known, and it is safe to say, that there are
"notes," ''leases,' "receipts'' and "con-
tracts amounting to vast sums of money
afioat in our State. the statute of which is
directly and definitely fixed and determined
by this decision.
The case was tried on its merits in the
district court of Ramsey county and judg-
ment ordered therein for the defendant.
From the judgment so entered, the plain
tiff appealed to the supreme court, and the
case was then argued and submitted April
26, 1873, by E. S. Chittenden, Esq, on the
part of the appellant, bank, and by VIM. J.
Parsons, Esq, on the part of the respondent,
Armstrong. The decision of the supreme
court was filed, as above stated, on the 18th
of March, 1879.
That the readers of the GLOBE may have
full and clear understanding of the case,
and realize the full effect of the final de-
cision, we give below the findings and order
of the district court, and the full text of the
decision of the supreme court:
State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey-Dis-
trict Court, Second District:
The Third National Bank of Syracuse, N. Y,
vs. Daniel Armstrong.
This cause came on for trial at general term
on the 18th day of February, 1877, before the
court without a jury, a jury trial being waived
by the parties. The parties appeared and SUBJ
mitted their proofs, and after consideration, I
the times hereinafter stated, and is now, q cor
poration as alleged in the complaint; that on
the 3lst day of July, A. D. 1873, said defend
ant made and delivered to plaintiff certain in
st:ument in writing in the words and fgu1es
following, to-wit: .
$43.33. ST. PAUL, July 81, 1878.
On or before the first day of December, 1876,
reaper, promise to pay to the order of the
Williams Mower and Reaper company, with
current exchange on New York city, at the First
National bank in st. Paul, forty-three 49, 100
dollars, with interest at IL per cent. from date
until paid, but if paid at or Before maturity, z
per cent per annum. This note to become due
upon removal of the maker, Notwithstanding
the above period of payment has not expired.
The sale and purchase of said Williams COM
bined reaper, the property for which this note
IS given, are upon the express condition that
| the title and ownership Of said property shall
| remain in the said the Williams Mower and
| Reaper company, and shall not pass to any one
by or through me until this note and interest
| are paid in full, and the delivery at this time
| Is subject to the same condition. The said, the
Williams Mower and Reaper company, shall in
| the meantime have the right to take possession
of said peoperty wherever it may be found at
| any time they may deem themselves insecure,
even before the maturity of this note, and ii
not paid when due will pay per cent extra
cost for collection. DANIEL ARMSTRONG.
That the same was duly stamped with United
States internal revenue stamp. That said Will
liams Mower and Reaper company were and arr
| . corporation as alleged in said complaint
That after said instrument was executed anC
delivered, and in the month of January, 1875
| the same was, for valuable consideration
sold, endorsed and delivered to the said plant
iH by said the Williams Mower and Reaper
company. That the consideration for said in
strument was one combined reaper and mower
| sold and delivered to said defendant by said
Mower and Reaper company upon the condi
tlons mentioned in said instrument and at the
time the same was given. That at the time OF
the sale as aforesaid of said reaper and mower
to defendant, and to induce the defendant tx
purchase the same, said Mower and Reaper
| company warranted and represented to de-
fendant that said machine was perfect and .
good machine, and that it would do good worl
| both as reaper and mower upon defendant,
farm in Washington county, in said State OF
Minnesota, and defendant accepted and pur
chased said machine, relying upon said repre-
| sentations and warranty. That said machin,
| was not good OF perfect machine, and that il
could not be used as a reaper, and that it could
| not be made to do good work ASA reaper, and
was worthless and of no value. That plaintiff
had no actual knowledge of said warranty MOI
| of the quality and character of said machine
before the purchase by it of said instrument
That the allegations of the pieadings, save as
| herein stated, are not true. And, as a oonclu.
sion Of law, find and determine that said in
strument is not q negotiable promissory note
That plaintiff is not entitled to Judgment
That defendant is entitled to Judgment fo
costs and disbursements.
| Let Judgment be entered accordingly.
II. +. BRILL, District Judge.