Cummings v. Iowa Household Credit Corporation

• Decision Date: 06 August 1940
• Docket Number: 45039.
• Citation: 293 N.W. 463,228 Iowa 807
• Parties: CUMMINGS v. IOWA HOUSEHOLD CREDIT CORPORATION et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

293 N.W. 463

228 Iowa 807

CUMMINGS v. IOWA HOUSEHOLD CREDIT CORPORATION et al.

No. 45039.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

August 6, 1940

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; B. O. Tankersley Judge.

Action at law to recover a sum allegedly due plaintiff for rent. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict; motion was overruled; no evidence offered by defendants. Court then sustained motion to direct verdict for plaintiff. Defendants have appealed.

Affirmed.

Boardman & Cartwright, of Marshalltown, for defendants-appellants.

F. E Northup, of Marshalltown, for plaintiff-appellee.

HAMILTON, Chief Justice.

Thomas H. Meickley occupied office rooms in plaintiff's building. The other defendant, Iowa Household Credit Corporation, of which Meickley was president, apparently was housed in same rooms. There was no written lease. All dealings were with Meickley. A Mr. Vitek, now deceased, was plaintiff's bookkeeper and attended to the renting and collecting of the rent. All rent paid was paid by Meickley. On the 18th of December, 1934, the rent, being greatly in arrears, was figured up by Mr. Vitek and a promissory note was executed for $618.93, signed by the Iowa Household Credit Corporation and endorsed by Meickley. This note was presented to plaintiff which she refused to accept, stating the note was signed by a corporation she had never heard of. There was then a conference with Meickley. Present at this interview were the plaintiff, Mr. Vitek, R. G. Northup, Attorney Hoover and perhaps others. At this time, Meickley was told that plaintiff would not accept note in its then condition; that it was only signed by the Household Credit Corporation; that it wasn't a note from Meickley at all but only of the corporation, which was out of business; that plaintiff wanted Meickley on the note so he too would be bound and Meickley was told, at that time, that plaintiff would not accept the same unless he endorsed it. Meickley, in reply to this, said he wanted the Iowa Household Credit Corporation to be liable on the note too and, if they couldn't pay it, he would pay it afterwards; that it was his debt. Plaintiff demanded that he endorse on the note: " I guarantee payment of it." Meickley said: " Well, my Uncle Frank always paid his notes and that is the way he endorsed them and I don't see why this isn't good enough endorsement for me to make." He admitted he owed the rent. He said he wanted the Iowa Household Credit Corporation, of which he was president, to pay what they could on it; that he would inherit his money some day and would be good and, if the corporation couldn't pay it, he would pay it. A dispute arose as to whether he would be personally bound by a mere endorsement. Meickley insisted that this method was sufficient to bind him. Attorney Hoover was called in; the attorney advised that he should write on the note guarantee of payment. Meickley said: " Well it is my debt and I intend to pay it." The attorney said: " Why don't you write that on there then? Meickley said: I won't do it, my Uncle Frank didn't do that." Meickley did not take the witness stand to deny this. He never questioned the correctness as to the amount nor his personal obligation to be bound to pay the same. It was his wish that plaintiff...