Tweeddale v. Tweeddale case brief summary
116 Wis. 517, 93 N.W. 440 (Wis. 1903)
SYNOPSIS:
Appellant third-party grantee sought relief from an entry of judgment by the Circuit Court, Kewaunee County (Wisconsin) for respondent grantor and others in the third-party grantee's action brought against the grantor and others seeking to foreclose on a mortgage agreement.
OVERVIEW: One of the landowner's sons promised his mother that as a mortgage on her homestead land he would pay her and his siblings certain amounts at the sale of the land to satisfy his indebtedness. The parties' agreement was executed and recorded without the knowledge of the third-party grantees. Upon the sale of the land, the grantee mother agreed to a modification and complete satisfaction of the grantor's obligations. Then, the third-party grantee learned of his original interest under the agreement. He brought his action.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The trial court found for the grantor by relying on the principle that the grantor had no liability to the third-party grantee because of lack of privity.
HOLDING:
-On appeal, the court reversed and remanded.
-It chose to adhere to the doctrine that held the grantor liable as a debtor to the third-party grantee at the moment when the grantor made his promise for consideration to the grantee mother to pay the third-party grantee a sum of money as a part of the mortgage agreement.
ANALYSIS:
-Thus, her satisfaction of the agreement was void.
-Also, the purchaser of the land was not an innocent party in the matter.
-Thus, the court ordered a judgment for the third-party grantee.
RULES:
-An agreement by one person, upon a good consideration, to pay his debt to another by paying the same to a third person, is just as binding where there is no consideration for the promise between the immediate promisee and the third person as where there is such consideration.
-Whether the benefit secured to the third person is a gift, strictly so called, or one intended, when realized, to discharge some liability of such promisee to the third person does not change the situation.
-It is the exchange of promises between the immediate parties, and the operation of law thereon, that binds the promisor to the third person.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the lower court's decision in favor of the grantor and others and remanded the action with directions to enter judgment in favor of the third-party grantee in accordance with the court's opinion.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
116 Wis. 517, 93 N.W. 440 (Wis. 1903)
SYNOPSIS:
Appellant third-party grantee sought relief from an entry of judgment by the Circuit Court, Kewaunee County (Wisconsin) for respondent grantor and others in the third-party grantee's action brought against the grantor and others seeking to foreclose on a mortgage agreement.
OVERVIEW: One of the landowner's sons promised his mother that as a mortgage on her homestead land he would pay her and his siblings certain amounts at the sale of the land to satisfy his indebtedness. The parties' agreement was executed and recorded without the knowledge of the third-party grantees. Upon the sale of the land, the grantee mother agreed to a modification and complete satisfaction of the grantor's obligations. Then, the third-party grantee learned of his original interest under the agreement. He brought his action.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The trial court found for the grantor by relying on the principle that the grantor had no liability to the third-party grantee because of lack of privity.
HOLDING:
-On appeal, the court reversed and remanded.
-It chose to adhere to the doctrine that held the grantor liable as a debtor to the third-party grantee at the moment when the grantor made his promise for consideration to the grantee mother to pay the third-party grantee a sum of money as a part of the mortgage agreement.
ANALYSIS:
-Thus, her satisfaction of the agreement was void.
-Also, the purchaser of the land was not an innocent party in the matter.
-Thus, the court ordered a judgment for the third-party grantee.
RULES:
-An agreement by one person, upon a good consideration, to pay his debt to another by paying the same to a third person, is just as binding where there is no consideration for the promise between the immediate promisee and the third person as where there is such consideration.
-Whether the benefit secured to the third person is a gift, strictly so called, or one intended, when realized, to discharge some liability of such promisee to the third person does not change the situation.
-It is the exchange of promises between the immediate parties, and the operation of law thereon, that binds the promisor to the third person.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the lower court's decision in favor of the grantor and others and remanded the action with directions to enter judgment in favor of the third-party grantee in accordance with the court's opinion.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment