Cotton v. John Deere Plow Co.

• Citation: 78 P. 321,1904 OK 89,14 Okla. 605
• Parties: JAMES F. COTTON AND JENNIE COTTON v. THE JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY.
• Decision Date: 03 September 1904
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

1904 OK 89

78 P. 321

14 Okla. 605

JAMES F. COTTON AND JENNIE COTTON v. THE JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 3, 1904

Syllabus

¶0 1. PROMISSORY NOTE--Stipulation for Attorney''s Fees--Effect. A promissory note which contains the following stipulation in relation to attorney''s fees, to wit: "It is stipulated by the parties to this note, that in event the same is collected by an attorney, or by any proceedings at law, an attorney's fee consisting of $ 10.00 and ten per cent of the amount so collected shall be paid by the makers hereof to the holder of the same," destroys the negotiable character of the instrument, and thereby makes it non-negotiable.

2. NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT--Innocent Purchasers. A nonnegotiable instrument, although transferred to an innocent purchaser before maturity and for a valuable consideration, is subject to all the legal defenses which might be interposed against the note in the hands of the original payee.

Error from the Probate Court of Pawnee County; before Geo. T. Graves, Trial Judge.

McGuire & Clark, for plaintiffs in error.

Wrightsman & Fulton and H. T. Conley, for defendants in error.

HAINER, J.:

¶1 This was an action brought by the John Deere Plow Company against the plaintiffs in error, James F. Cotton and Jennie Cotton, to recover $ 200.00, interest and attorney's fees, on a promissory note, executed by James F. Cotton and Jennie Cotton to George B. Wood & Co., and by George B. Wood & Co., sold and transferred, before maturity, for a valuable consideration, to George S. Soulsby, and thereafter, and before maturity, for a valuable consideration, sold and transferred by the said Soulsby to the John Deere Plow Company.

¶2 The defendants' answer consists of a general denial, and that the note sued on was without consideration and was procured by fraud and false representations.

¶3 Upon the issues thus joined, the cause was tried to the court, without a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of the petition. From this judgment the defendants appeal.

¶4 It appears from the record that after the plaintiff had introduced its evidence and rested its case, the defendants offered to prove by J. F. Cotton, the principal defendant, that the note sued on was without consideration, and was obtained by false and fraudulent representations. To the introduction of this testimony the plaintiff objected, upon the ground that the testimony introduced on behalf of the plaintiff showed that the note had been transferred before maturity, and that it was in the hands of innocent purchasers before maturity, and that the note was, in form, a negotiable instrument. This objection was sustained by the court, to which ruling the defendants duly excepted. Thereupon each party rested his case, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial was duly filed, overruled, and exception reserved; and the defendants brought the case here for review.

¶5 The cause was tried on the theory that the note sued on was a negotiable instrument. This was clearly...