Darrow v. Blake

• Decision Date: 12 July 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 50,58 Iowa 750
• Parties: DARROW v. BLAKE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

58 Iowa 750

13 N.W. 50

DARROW

v.BLAKE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed July 12, 1882.

Appeal from Warren circuit court.

Action upon a promissory note. The defendant admits the execution of the note, but avers that the same was obtained from him without consideration, and by fraud. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs appeal.Henderson & Berry, for appellants.

H. McNeil and J. S. McKinney, for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

The note was executed payable to the order of the maker, and indorsed by him in blank, and given to one Parsons, who transferred it before maturity and for a valuable consideration to the plaintiffs, who are partners. The note was given under an arrangement whereby the defendant was to become the agent of the American Hog Cholera Cure Company of Eureka, Iowa. Without setting out in detail the facts relied upon by defendant, it is sufficient to say that there was evidence tending to show that the note was procured by fraud, as the defendant avers. Upon this evidence the court instructed the jury, in substance, that if they found that the note was procured by fraud they should find for the defendant, unless they found that the plaintiffs purchased the note before maturity for a valuable consideration without knowledge of the fraud, and in case they found that the plaintiffs did so purchase the note, then the verdict should be for them. The plaintiffs do not complain of this instruction; but they say that under it the verdict should have been for them, because, while the jury might have been justified in finding that the note was procured by fraud, the evidence was conclusive that it was purchased by plaintiffs without knowledge of the fraud. The purchase was made by one Tenny, a member of the plaintiffs' firm, who testified that he had no knowledge of any of the circumstances connected with the note. To rebut this evidence the defendant showed that there had been other victims of hog-cholera notes in that community, and that Tenny had been informed that it was claimed that the hog-cholera notes, as a class, were fraudulent. But it is not shown that whatever information Tenny received upon this subject was received after the purchase. Tenny's testimony, therefore, is uncontradicted.

There remains, then, only to be considered whether proof that Tenny was at the time of the purchase without knowledge of the fraud was sufficient. The defendant contends that it was not. He...