Ellertson v. Roholt
| Decision Date | 10 December 1909 |
| Docket Number | 16,254 - (58) |
| Citation | 123 N.W. 811,109 Minn. 241 |
| Parties | E. E. ELLERTSON v. JOHN ROHOLT and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Polk county to recover $1,750 upon a promissory note. In their answer defendants admitted making the note, denied the title of plaintiff to the note and set up a counterclaim of $1,800 for breach of warranty of a ditching machine sold to defendants by the company of which plaintiff was president. The reply set out the written order upon which the machine was sold. The case was tried before Watts, J., and a jury which rendered a general verdict in favor of defendants and special findings that plaintiff was not the owner of the note, that he had not purchased it in good faith for a valuable consideration before its maturity that it was not purchased by the First National Bank in good faith for a valuable consideration before its maturity, and that the plaintiff was not required as indorser to pay the amount of the note to the bank. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Promissory Note -- Title -- Verdicts Sustained by Evidence.
In an action to recover a money judgment one defense was that plaintiff did not own the promissory note sued upon. The jury returned a general verdict for defendant, and a special verdict that plaintiff was not the owner of that note. It is held that there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdicts, and that they should be upheld.
George E. Young and A. A. Miller, for appellant.
W. E Rowe, for respondent.
The complaint of plaintiff and appellant set forth: Defendants and respondents executed their promissory note to the order of the Russel Grader Manufacturing Company. After delivery, and before maturity thereof, said company sold and delivered the said promissory note to this plaintiff. Plaintiff indorsed said note to the bank, to which on maturity it was not paid. "Thereafter, and upon the failure of these defendants to pay said note when due, plaintiff was compelled to take up, and did take up, said note, by paying the same to said bank, which was thereupon assigned and delivered to this plaintiff." The answer, among other things, presented the issue whether plaintiff was the owner of the note described. The jury brought in a general verdict for the defendants and a number of special findings. The particular finding involved here was that the plaintiff was not the owner of the promissory note described in the complaint in this action at the time this action was commenced. Plaintiff took this appeal from the order of the trial court denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and also his motion for a new trial.
The essential question presented by this record is whether, within the familiar rule on that subject, there was sufficient evidence to justify the action of the trial court in refusing to set aside this finding by the jury. An examination of the record has satisfied us that affirmance is necessary.
Plaintiff was, at the time he indorsed the note to himself, the president of the company. He said to the officers of the company that he "would buy it, if they were willing to sell it" to him. In response to defendant's question, "And they told you you could have it?" he replied, "No, sir." Plaintiff admitted that the first thing he should have done (after the note came into his possession) would be to enter it upon the book, and that he did not do this. Perhaps the most significant thing is his testimony to the effect that the bank took the note for its face value, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial