Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1910-03-17
DECISION IN
D DAY CASE

State of Wisconsin in Circuit Court
Wood County.
John O'Day, plaintiff vs., Joseph A.
Meyers and Dennis D. Conway, de-
PENDANTS. Decision.
The evidence herein sufficiently es-
tablishes the following:
1. The defendants, Conway and
Meyers first met on Sunday, May H.
1908, on which day, in company with
Mr.. Bolzendahl, (brother-in-law %
Meyers,) and Mr.. Whitrock, Ga farm
er of Grand Rapids Town. they visit
the land in controversy. Later, on
the same day, they met at Mr.. Con-
ways office and agreed upon the
terms of a proposed contract of sale
of the land by Conway to Meyers.
Such contract was reduced to writ
ing and signed in duplicate, (both
copies of which were received in
evidence, marked "a" and 40" re
spectively.) Meyers also at the
same time, signed a check for 800
and his promissory note in negotja-
Bile form, payable to the order of
Conway, for $900-wbich were to con-
stitute partial payments of the pur
chase money of the land. ALI these
papers were left with Asst. Cash
ier Miller, of the First National Bank
with directions that they be by him
delivered to the respective parties
on the following day. (Monday, May
18th;) and it was then expressly
stated, and understood by both par
ties, that such delay of delivery OF
the papers was for the purpose of
accomplishing the execution Of the
ingly, on said following day, (Mon-
day,) Miller delivered one duplicate
copy of the contract, together with
the note and check mentioned, to Coz
way, and mafled the other copy of
the contract to defendant Meyers at
his address in Milwaukee, at the
place lit was received by Meyers wife
as early as the evening of the 18th
and by Meyers personally not later
than the goth. Meyers retained his
copy of the contract several days
thereafter-until the 29th-wfthOut
protest. or intimation to any one com
cerned that he did not receive and
accept the same as a delivery of the
contract therein expressed In the
meantime Conway, in regular course,
collected the check and negotiated the
note mentioned precisely as Meyers
understood and expected would be
done These facts constituted a de-
livery and acceptance of the con-
tract by the parties mutually after
Sunday, May 18th, which as such be
came effective as to both not later
than May goth The contract, there
fore, was not and is not void as
having been made and executed on
Sunday.
2. The evidence wholly fails to
sustain the allegations, or any of
them, of the answer of defendant
Meyers to the effect that he was in-
fluenced and induced to execute thp
contract i'm suit by reason of false
representations made by Conway,
and by Bolzendahl, acting as agent
of Conway, concerning the chraacter
quality, value and desireableness of
the land contracted for; and also
by fraudulent concealm ments of mater
ial facts concerning the same by
Conway, and by Bolzendahl acting as
such agent-all as alleged in said
answer. No false or fraudulent re-
presentations or fraudulent conceal
ments by Conway, nor by any per-
son representing him, as to any ma
teriaI fact or facts concerning said
land are proven to have. at any time
been made.
The plaintiff became assignee
of the contract in suit in good faith,
for full and valuable considreatio
paid without notice of any alleged
infirmity therein or defnese there
to. If the alleged infirity of Sunday