Cotton v. John Deere Plow Co.

• Decision Date: 03 September 1904
• Citation: 78 P. 321,14 Okla. 605,1904 OK 89
• Parties: COTTON et ux. v. JOHN DEERE PLOW CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

78 P. 321

14 Okla. 605, 1904 OK 89

COTTON et ux. v. JOHN DEERE PLOW CO.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 3, 1904

Syllabus by the Court.

1. 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 nonnegotiable.

2. 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 Probate Court, Pawnee County; Geo. T. Graves, Judge.

Action by the John Deere Plow Company against James F. Cotton and Jennie Cotton. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.

McGuire & Clark, for plaintiffs in error.

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

HAINER J.

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, 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. 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. 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.

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...