Chesney v. Bodily, 5669

CourtIdaho Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtLEE, C. J.
Citation50 Idaho 597,298 P. 937
Decision Date25 April 1931
Docket Number5669
PartiesE. L. CHESNEY, Appellant, v. HERBERT N. BODILY, Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES B. FIFIELD, Deceased, and NINA D. FIFIELD, Respondents

298 P. 937

50 Idaho 597

E. L. CHESNEY, Appellant,
v.

HERBERT N. BODILY, Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES B. FIFIELD, Deceased,

and NINA D. FIFIELD, Respondents

No. 5669

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 25, 1931


BILLS AND NOTES-HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

1. Defenses of noncompliance with Foreign Corporation and Blue Sky Laws by corporate payee of note sued on held not sham, irrelevant and redundant (C. S., secs. 4772-4779, 5305-5324).

2. Supreme court presumes that trial court, denying appellant's motion for directed verdict, overruled objections to matters stipulated, where ruling does not appear from record.

3. Allegation charging plaintiff with notice of defects in payee's title to note sued on held not essential (C. S., secs. 5919, 5926).

4. Evidence of corporate payee's noncompliance with Foreign Corporation Law and Blue Sky Laws held admissible in action on note (C. S., secs. 4772-4779, 5305-5324).

5. Transferee of note, fair and regular on face, was not bound to inquire whether payee complied with state laws, unless he knew facts putting him on inquiry (C. S., secs. 5919, 5926).

6. Plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony that he had no notice of payee's noncompliance with state laws when he bought note sued on discharged burden of proving himself holder in due course (C. S., secs. 5919, 5926).

7. Presumption is that plaintiff bought note sued on before maturity, in absence of contrary evidence (C. S., sec. 5926).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Franklin County. Hon. Robert M. Terrell, Judge.

Action on promissory note. Judgment for defendant. Reversed.

Judgment reversed with instructions; costs to appellant. Petition for rehearing denied.

Gustin & Pence and P. M. Condie, for Appellant.

The violation of the foreign corporation law by the payee is not a defense to the note nor does it shift the burden to the holder to prove his bona fides. (Ashley State Bank v. Hood, 47 Idaho 780, 279 P. 419; Moody v. Morris Roberts Co., 38 Idaho 414, 226 P. 278; Butte Machinery Co. v. Jeppesen, 41 Idaho 642, 241 P. 36; First Nat. Bank v. Utterback, 177 Ky. 76, 197 S.W. 534, L. R. A. 1918B, 838; Press Co. v. City Bank of Hartford, 58 F. 321, 7 C. C. A. 248; McMann v. Walker, 31 Colo. 261, 72 P. 1055.)

L. R. Morgan, for Respondents.

The violation of C. S., chap. 206, commonly known as the Blue Sky Laws, by the payee in a note constitutes a defect in title and shifts the burden to the holder to prove that he is a holder in due course. (Ashley State Bank v. Hood, supra.)

The court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict, in his favor, and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. (Winters v. Nobs, 19 Idaho 18, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 302, 112 P. 525; Ashley & Rumelin Bankers v. Brady, 41 Idaho 160, 238 P. 314; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Talbott, 39 Idaho 707, 230 P. 30; First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 31 Idaho 167, 169 P. 936; First Nat. Bank v. Pond, 39 Idaho 770, 230 P. 344; 8 C. J., p. 1061, sec. 1376; Ashley State Bank v. Hood, supra.)

LEE, C. J. Givens, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur. Budge, J., took no part in the decision.

OPINION [298 P. 938]

[50 Idaho 598] LEE, C. J.

Plaintiff and appellant, E. L. Chesney, sued defendants and respondents, Herbert N. Bodily, as administrator of the estate of Charles B. Fifield, deceased, and Nina D. Fifield, the widow, upon a promissory note theretofore made and delivered the Pioneer Sugar Company, a Utah corporation, by deceased, and later by that company indorsed in blank and transferred to one E. R. Wooley who thereafter transferred and delivered it to appellant: it was alleged that both transfers had been made for value and before maturity. Respondents denied each and every allegation [50 Idaho 599] of the complaint, and affirmatively plead that the Sugar Company, at all times mentioned in the complaint, was not and never had been entitled to do business within the state of Idaho by reason of noncompliance with the provisions of chap. 187 of the Idaho Compiled Statutes of 1919, relating to foreign corporations, and was not and never had been entitled "to do business of the character alleged in the complaint," not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Continental Nat. Bank of Salt Lake City v. Cole, 5701
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 8, 1931
    ...as to the fact, objected to the relevancy, materiality and competency thereof. This evidence was admissible (Chesney v. Bodily, 50 Idaho 597, 298 P. 937), and placed the burden on appellant of proving that it was a holder in due course. (Ashley State Bank v. Hood, 47 Idaho 780, 279 P. 418; ......
  • Frachiseur v. Mountain View Irr. Co., Inc., No. 12457
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 3, 1979
    ...in a party attempting to maintain suit On The contract. See for example, cases prior to the Idaho Securities Act: Chesney v. Bodily, 50 Idaho 597, 298 P. 937 (1931); McCornick & Co. v. Tolmie Bros., 42 Idaho 1, 243 P. 355 (1926); McKinlay v. Javan Mines Co., 42 Idaho 770, 248 P. 473 (1926);......
2 cases
  • Continental Nat. Bank of Salt Lake City v. Cole, 5701
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 8, 1931
    ...as to the fact, objected to the relevancy, materiality and competency thereof. This evidence was admissible (Chesney v. Bodily, 50 Idaho 597, 298 P. 937), and placed the burden on appellant of proving that it was a holder in due course. (Ashley State Bank v. Hood, 47 Idaho 780, 279 P. 418; ......
  • Frachiseur v. Mountain View Irr. Co., Inc., No. 12457
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 3, 1979
    ...in a party attempting to maintain suit On The contract. See for example, cases prior to the Idaho Securities Act: Chesney v. Bodily, 50 Idaho 597, 298 P. 937 (1931); McCornick & Co. v. Tolmie Bros., 42 Idaho 1, 243 P. 355 (1926); McKinlay v. Javan Mines Co., 42 Idaho 770, 248 P. 473 (1926);......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT