Case Name: Northern Minnesota Dairy Farm Land Company, Appellant, vs. Haswell, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1922-07-08
Citations: 177 Wis. 635
Docket Number: 
Parties: Northern Minnesota Dairy Farm Land Company, Appellant, vs. Haswell, Respondent.
Judges: Eschweiler, J., dissents.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 177
Pages: 635–638

Head Matter:
Northern Minnesota Dairy Farm Land Company, Appellant, vs. Haswell, Respondent.
June 7
July 8, 1922.
Judgment: Part payment: Agreement to satisfy: Consideration: Corporations: Authority of officers: Ratification.
1. Where a-judgment debtor applied to a judgment creditor for an extension of time in which to pay his debt and paid $100 and gave his promissory note for the balance, and the judgment creditor agreed to satisfy the judgment, such agreement was based on a consideration. 11
2. The executive officers of a corporation, are presumed to have authority to carry on its ordinary business; and, whether or not the officers originally had authority, the retention by the corporation for several years of. a part payment of the debt and a promissory note given for the balance constituted a ratification of the acts of its officers in accepting them.
Eschweiler, J., dissents.
. Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dane county. E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
The appeal is from an order of the circuit court directing that a judgment entered upon cognovit in said court on the 16th day of May, 1917, be satisfied, and refusing permission to plaintiff to issue execution upon same.
The plaintiff made application to the court for leave to issue execution on said judgment. The defendant thereupon asked that said judgment be satisfied, claiming .that the same had been paid. The court took testimony, from which it appears that after the entry of judgment in 19.17 the defendant applied to the plaintiff for an extension of time in which to pay the debt, and finally paid $100 and gave his promissory note, payable in the future, for the balance, less the costs taxed in the proceeding. Defendant claimed that this was in pursuance of an agreement that the plaintiff should satisfy the judgment. The court found for the defendant and ordered the judgment satisfied. The plaintiff claims that its president and secretary, who acted for the corporation, had no authority to satisfy the judgment and take the note in place thereof.
For the appellant there were briefs by Hall & Baker of Madison, and oral argument by Frank W. Hall.
For the respondent there was a brief by Duckert '& Porter of Madison, and oral argument by R. F. Duckert.

Opinion:
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.
The 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.