Baach v. Bank of Pocahontas
Decision Date | 17 September 1931 |
Citation | 157 Va. 274 |
Parties | LOUIS BAACH v. BANK OF POCAHONTAS. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Campbell, Epes, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.
1. BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS — Defenses — Absence of Consideration — Parol Evidence. — Absence or failure of consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a holder in due course of a negotiable note, and in such cases may always be shown by parol evidence.
2. BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS — Defenses — Absence of Consideration — Parol Evidence — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action against the endorser of a negotiable note. Defendant stated in his grounds of defense that he signed the note on the back thereof not in his individual capacity but as an officer of a corporation, and that plaintiff bank was not a holder in due course. Defendant introduced in evidence an agreement under which the plaintiff bank held the note in question and evidence tending to show that his intention in signing his name on the note was to endorse the name of the corporation thereon by him as secretary and treasurer, and not to endorse it as an individual, together with other evidence to the same effect. The trial court struck out all of the defendant's evidence and entered judgment for plaintiff against defendant.
Held: That the court erred in so doing, as the evidence introduced was admissible to show absence or failure of consideration for defendant's endorsement.
3. BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS — Holder in Due Course — Transfer of Note by One Bank to Another Which Had Assumed the Liabilities of the First Bank — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action on a note against an endorser. The note in question had been transferred by a National Bank to a State Bank under an agreement whereby the National Bank finding itself embarrassed transferred all its notes and other assets to the State Bank and the State Bank agreed to assume the liabilities of the National Bank. This transfer differed materially from a contract which arises between the parties by operation of law upon the negotiation of a negotiable note. While the contract transferred title to the State Bank for value and constituted it the holder of the note, it did not constitute it a holder in due course, and the note in the hands of the State Bank was subject to the same defense to which it was subject in the hands of the National Bank.
4. BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS — Endorsement — Whether Endorsement was a Personal Endorsement or an Endorsement as Officer of Corporation — Consideration for Individual Endorsement — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action on a negotiable note against an endorser thereof. The defendant alleged that his endorsement was not in his individual capacity but as an officer of a corporation. Defendant was entitled to show as a defense to the action that his personal endorsation was made without consideration. Defendant's evidence showed that the intention of the bank was to accept this note with the endorsement thereon of the corporation of which defendant was an officer without the individual endorsement of defendant; that it did not ask for or require the endorsement of defendant individually, and that the bank gave no consideration for defendant's endorsement which was purely voluntary and without consideration to him.
Held: That a judgment in favor of plaintiff should be reversed and judgment entered for defendant.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Tazewell county, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for money. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.
The opinion states the case.
N. Clarence Smith, for the plaintiff in error.
R. O. Crockett, for the defendant in error.
This is an action brought by notice of motion for judgment in the Circuit Court of Tazewell county by the Bank of Pocahontas against Sidney Bloch, Excelsior By-Products Coal Company, a corporation, and Louis Baach to recover from the defendants the amount due upon a certain negotiable note.
The note sued upon is a note dated Pocahontas, Virginia, October 19, 1926, drawn for $2,875.00, payable at First National Bank, Pocahontas, Virginia, eighty days after date, to the order of Excelsior By-Products Coal Company, and signed by Sidney Bloch. The endorsements on the back of the note, in so far as here material, read as follows:
}"Excelsior By-Products Coal Co.
}"W. R. Graham, Pres."
The note has on its face an unsigned memorandum as follows:
}"Credit the maker.
}"When due, April 17, 1927."
We are here concerned with the case only in so far as judgment was entered against Louis Baach. He plead the general issue and filed his grounds of defense which read:
By agreement the case was tried by the court without a jury; and the plaintiff introduced the note sued on and rested.
The defendant introduced an agreement between the First National Bank of Pocahontas, hereinafter called the National Bank, and the Bank of Pocahontas, hereinafter called the State Bank, which with some immaterial omissions reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Norman v. Beling
...See also Central Bank of Rochester v. Gleason, 206 App.Div. 28, 200 N.Y.S. 384 (App.Div.1923); Baach v. Bank of Pocahontas, 157 Va. 274, 160 S.E. 68, 76 A.L.R. 1324 (Sup.Ct.App.1931); Germania National Bank of Milwaukee v. Mariner, 129 Wis. 544, 109 N.W. 574 (Sup.Ct.1906). For example, in F......
-
Wheeler v. Wardell
...designed to overthrow them. See the following cases: Ward v. Bank of Pocahontas, 167 Va. 169, 187 S.E. 491; Baach v. Bank of Pocahontas, 157 Va. 274, 160 S.E. 68, 76 A.L.R. 1324; Continental Trust Co. v. Witt, 139 Va. 458, 124 S.E. 265; Lynch v. O'Brien, 115 Va. 350, 79 S.E. 389, and Keckle......
-
Wheeler v. Wardell
...designed to overthrow them. See the following case: Ward Bank of Pocahontas, 167 Va. 169, 187 S.E. 491; Baach Bank of Pocahontas, 157 Va. 274, 160 S.E. 68, 76 A.L.R. 1324; Continental Trust Co. Witt, 139 Va. 458, 124 S.E. 265; Lynch O'Brien, 115 Va. 350, 79 S.E. 389, and Keckley Union Bank ......
-
Lawton v. Walker, 822146
...unusual circumstances which indicate that he is merely a successor in interest to the prior holder." See Baach v. Bank of Pocahontas, 157 Va. 274, 282-83, 160 S.E. 68, 70-71 (1931). The Comment states that the subsection "applies to bulk purchases lying outside of the ordinary course of bus......