Douglass v. Boulevard Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1917
• Citation: 100 A. 1067,91 Conn. 601
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DOUGLASS v. BOULEVARD CO. et al.

100 A. 1067

91 Conn. 601

DOUGLASS

v. BOULEVARD CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 1, 1917.

Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Francis T. Reeves, Judge.

Action by Frank S. R. Douglass against the Boulevard Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. New trial ordered for error.

This action is on a note for $5,000 made by the defendant the Boulevard Company, and indorsed by the defendants W. E. Russell, Albert Delay, and H. B. Russell. The defendants' answer admitted the execution of the note, and set out certain special defenses: (1) That the note was accepted by the plaintiff in violation of chapter 244 of Public Acts of 1911. (2) At the time the note was executed the makers of the note were only indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $3,500. (3) The defendant Harry B. Russell pleaded as a third defense that the plaintiff agreed to discount to him 50 per cent. of his loss, in case he was required to pay the note. The case was tried to the jury, and they rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note.

The defendants on the trial offered evidence tending to prove the following facts: The defendants William E. Russell and Albert Delay were officers and stockholders of the defendant company. In January, 1913, the defendant company and the officers were unable to raise sufficient funds to carry on their business. The plaintiff was a man of property, had retired from active business on account of ill health, was accustomed to and had been in the habit of loaning money. In December, 1912, the defendant William E. Russell informed the plaintiff as to the financial condition of the company and of its inability to raise money, and an agreement was made between the plaintiff and the said Russell, as president of the defendant company, whereby the plaintiff agreed to advance sufficient funds to permit the purchase of cars by the defendant company, with an agreement that for each pleasure ear sold the plaintiff was to receive the sum of $50, and for each truck sold the sum of $100. The plaintiff between January and June, 1913, advanced about $13,000, with which the defendants purchased automobiles. As the cars were shipped to the defendant company each shipment was accompanied by a draft, which draft was paid by the plaintiff. On the payment of each draft the plaintiff prepared a note for the amount of the draft so paid and added $50 for each car if sold, and also in addition charged 6 per cent. interest. On October 1, 1913, the plaintiff, being about to leave the state on account of the condition of his health, drew up the note described in the complaint and included in the amount named in the note $1,762 as commissions on cars sold. The plaintiff rendered no service to the company other than as stated. The plaintiff claimed to have proved that the $50 on each car sold was to be paid to him for his assistance to the defendant company in the conduct of its business by giving the defendant company the benefit of his mature business advice in selecting the kind of cars and trucks to deal in, and by soliciting business from his business acquaintances in the purchase of cars and trucks from the defendant company.

From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals and assigns as reasons errors in the charge of the court, the refusal to set aside the verdict as against the evidence, and particularly the verdict against the defendant Harry B. Russell.

Lawrence L. Lewis and Edward B. Reiley, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellants. James M. Lynch, of Waterbury, for appellee.

SHUMWAY, J. (after stating the facts as above). Section 1, of chapter 244,...