Citizens' State Bank v. Rowley

• Decision Date: 23 January 1897
• Citation: 69 N.W. 1017,100 Iowa 636
• Parties: CITIZENS' STATE BANK v. ROWLEY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

100 Iowa 636

69 N.W. 1017

CITIZENS' STATE BANK

v.ROWLEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 23, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Woodbury county; George W. Wakefield, Judge.

Plaintiff brings suit upon a check for $100, which was drawn by the defendants Rowley & Driggs upon the defendant the Iowa Savings Bank, and delivered to one Ball, who procured the same to be cashed at plaintiff's bank. It is alleged that the defendant the savings bank refused payment, though at the time having in its possession money of the drawers sufficient to pay the same. Rowley & Driggs answered, admitting the execution of the check, and its payment by plaintiff to Ball, and that demand had been made for the payment of the same, and payment refused. By way of counterclaim they aver that the check was given to Ball, who was then acting as their agent, and it was to be used in the purchase of certain cattle; that Ball presented it to plaintiff, and received the money therefor,--$91.50 of which he paid to one Bellmeyer on account of the purchase of certain cattle; that before said money was paid to Bellmeyer plaintiff agreed with Ball to furnish him sufficient money to complete the purchase of said cattle upon a sight draft drawn by Ball upon the defendants Rowley & Driggs; that after Ball had paid the $91.50 to Bellmeyer, plaintiff refused to furnish the money, and by reason thereof Ball was unable to complete the purchase of the cattle; that Rowley & Driggs have not been repaid the $91.50, and were at an expense of $20 in attempting to purchase the cattle, and that they lost $50 in profits on the cattle. Judgment is asked for $170. The defendant the Iowa Savings Bank answered, denying that at the time said check was presented it had funds on hand for its payment, and alleging that prior thereto payment of said check had been stopped by order of the defendants Rowley & Driggs. They also averred that the check had not been assigned to plaintiff for value, but plaintiff wrongfully obtained the same in payment of an indebtedness of the payee to plaintiff, knowing that said payee had no right to so apply the same. Plaintiff replied by a denial of the allegations in the counterclaim of Rowley & Driggs. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and a verdict of $11.50 returned against the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was entered. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.A. D. Keller and Lynn & Foley, for appellant.

Lewis & Beardsley, for appellees.

KINNE, C. J.

1. It is insisted that the court erred in permitting the witness Ball to testify that he was arrested at the instance of Gilmore, the cashier of plaintiff...