Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 Iowa 31

Spencer v. Millisack

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 9, 1879

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1879-10-09

The plaintiff, for canse of claim against the defendants, alleges that on the 22d day of May, 1875, the defendant I. Millisack executed his promissory note to the plaintiff for $240, and that in January, 1878, Millisack sold and delivered to the defendant Swaim a bill of goods or merchandise consisting of a store in Albia, and as a part consideration the defendant Swaim agreed with Millisack and plaintiff to assume said note, and promised to pay the same.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1961

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-10-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Day, J.

¶1The agreement between the defendants is, that Millisack shall invoice his stock of goods at wholesale price, and then cut ten per cent from the invoice price. The court found as a fact that it is generally understood among merchants that wholesale price means the price paid by the buyer to the wholesale merchant, without carriage. When the defendants came to settle, they added to the invoice of goods the-sum of five per cent for carriage. .No new contract was made, for the. court finds that no further or new consideration passed between the parties. What occurred between them was simply an expression of the understanding which they then had of the meaning of their original agreement. It was agreed *34that pursuant to this understanding the defendant Swaim should execute his note to the plaintiff, with security, for $240, and that thereupon the note of the defendant Millisack should be regarded as satisfied, and should be surrendered. But this was never done. The agreement between Millisack and Swaim as to the amount due, and the manner of payment, was never consummated. It amounted to no more than a mere understanding as to the amount due under the original contract. The question now is whether this understanding shall prevail over the real meaning of the contract, as imported by its terms, and as generally understood by merchants. The court held that the understanding of the parties at the time of their settlement must prevail. In so holding, we think the court erred. If the agreement had been consummated and Swaim had executed his note to plaintiff, with surety, jmyable in two years, and Miliisack’s note had been surrendered, a very different question would be presented. But here was nothing more than an understanding- as to the amount due. Swaim obtained no extension of credit. None of the parties changed their situation.

¶2The defendants made a computation of the- amount due upon the contract. In making- this computation they did not properly understand the meaning of the contract. In a suit upon the contract its real, and not its supposed, meaning must prevail.

¶3The defendant Swaim in'his answer as garnishee, admitted owing the defendant Millisack $70. Judgment should be rendered against him for that amount in favor of Collins & Downing, -without costs.

¶4Reversed.

/52/iowa/31 · .json · Public domain