Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 10 December 1880
• Citation: 7 N.W. 470,55 Iowa 104
• Parties: CITIZENS' NAT. BANK v. ELLIOTT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

55 Iowa 104

7 N.W. 470

CITIZENS' NAT. BANK

v.ELLIOTT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 10, 1880.

Appeal from Polk circuit court.

Action on a promissory note which the defendant had indorsed to the plaintiff. A counter claim was pleaded. Trial by jury, who were instructed to find for the plaintiff, which they did; and, judgment having been rendered on the verdict, the defendant appeals.Wright, Gatch & Wright, for appellant.

Nourse, Kaufman & Jackson, for appellee.

SEEVERS, J.

1. The first ground upon which a recovery was sought on the counter claim was stated as follows: “As an affirmative defence and by way of counter claim defendant says that heretofore, to-wit, in the fall of 1871, he, with Samuel Merrill, bought into a banking firm, composed of Samuel Coskery and John W. Ulm, and that this defendant and said three others soon thereafter formed a corporation known as the Citizens' Bank, of which bank the said Coskery, Ulm, Merrill, and this defendant, and one other, were the first directors,--the said Merrill being chosen as president and this defendant as vice-president; that it was agreed and determined between said directors, before the duties of said several offices were entered upon, that this defendant should have and receive for his services as vice-president the yearly salary of $2,000, but whether the action of said board is recorded defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to say.”

We understand the right to recover is based on a special contract made with the directors of the bank by the defendant, whereby it was agreed the latter should receive $2,000 a year for his services as vice-president of the bank. There was no evidence tending so prove such a contract, and therefore the jury were properly directed to find for the plaintiff as to the cause of action above stated.

2. The defendant sought to prove what was said or agreed between Merrill, Coskery, and Ulm, and the defendant, in relation to salaries of the officers before the organization of the corporation, and also what services the defendant performed for the bank from November, 1871, to January, 1872. The evidence was either rejected, struck out, or disregarded, as we think rightly, so far as the cause of action above stated is concerned, on the ground it was immaterial. The defendant must recover on the counter claim, if at all, on the stated ground his salary had been fixed or agreed upon by the plaintiff's board of directors. The evidence aforesaid had no tendency to establish any such proposition.

3. The remaining ground on which a recovery was asked on the counter claim is as follows: “Further answering, defendant says that in the fall of 1871 he, with others, became the owners of the bank, which, about the fall of said year, was organized by said owners and others into a banking corporation known as the Citizens' Bank; that by the vote, and at the request of the owners thereof, defendant became and for a long time acted as and performed the duties of vice-president, rendering valuable and efficient aid thereto. reasonably worth the sum of $1,000; that after said bank had been in operation for some time, by action of its owners it was...