107 Wis. 471 | Wis. | 1900
This action was commenced in justice’s court October 3, 1899, to recover the amount alleged to be due on the promissory note executed by the defendants, and in the words and figures following, to wit:
“ $100. Waupaca, Wisconsin, November 30th, 1898.
“ On or before four years after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of Richard Pagal, at Waupaca*472 •County National Bank, Waupaca, Wisconsin, one hundred dollars, with interest at the rate o.f no per cent, per annum. This note is given as security for the payment of one hundred dollars, provided to be paid by the conditions of a certain lease given Richa/rd Pagal by Ida Dixon, and is to become due provided Ida Dixon sells the Terrio farm described in said lease; otherwise to be void and of no value.
“ Ida Dixon*.
“ Daniel Nickel.”
The defendant, Nickel, answered by way of a general denial. The cause having been taken to the circuit court by appeal and there retried, that court at the close of the evidence directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $100. Erom the judgment entered thereon accordingly for that amount, with costs, the defendant Daniel Nickel appeals.
It appears from the record that the lease from Ida Dixon to the plaintiff, mentioned in the note, was dated and executed on the same day as the note, and was “ for 'the term of five yearsj commencing ” on that day, and contained a clause expressly reserving to Ida Dixon the right to sell the premises, and in such case to notify the plaintiff during the months of March and Eebruary each year of such sale, and in such case to pay the plaintiff $100, and allow him to remain in possession of such farm until the January following such notice, and the plaintiff was to have the privilege of terminating the lease by giving the same notice and paying Ida Dixon $50,— each party to secure the other for such payment; that September 19, 1899, Ida Dixon conveyed the farm to Carl Pagal by deed reciting a consideration of $3,100; that such deed was therein made subject to the lease after January 1, 1900; otherwise, the deed stated that the land was free and clear of'all incumbrance.
Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the plaintiff worked the farm on shares. By the express language of the deed mentioned, Ida Dixon transferred her share of'the crops
But, even with such a construction, still the demurrer ore ienus should have been sustained. The action was commenced within a year after the date of the note, whereas the note, by its terms, was not due until “ on or before four years after date,” with a proviso to the effect that it should only then “become due” in case of such sale of the farm. The words “ on or before ” undoubtedly gave to the makers of the note the privilege of paying at any time before the end of the four years, but they did not give the holder of the note the right to enforce collection before that time.
By the Oourt. — The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.