Farmers' Bank v. Redman

• Decision Date: 11 November 1929
• Docket Number: No. 16562.,16562.
• Parties: FARMERS' BANK OF WEATHERBY v. REDMAN et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

24 S.W.2d 235

FARMERS' BANK OF WEATHERBY v. REDMAN et al.

No. 16562.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 11, 1929.

Rehearing Denied December 2, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; W. H. Utz, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by the Farmers' Bank of Weatherby against Ardy Redman and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lesley P. Robinson, of Trenton, and Roy Lindsay, of St. Joseph, for appellants.

E. G. Robison and J. J. Robison, both of Maysville, and O. W. Watkins, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

BARNETT, C.

This is a suit upon a promissory note. The petition is in conventional form. The note is in words and figures as follows:

                "$1100.00         Weatherby, Missouri
                                          "Dec. 2, 1926
                

"Six months after date we as principals promise to pay to the order of The Farmers Bank of Weatherby Eleven Hundred & 00-100 Dollars, for value received, at the Farmers Bank of Weatherby, Missouri, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum, from date and if the interest be not paid annually, or when due, to become as principal and bear the same rate of interest, each of the makers hereof and endorsers hereon, waive demand, protest and notice of non-payment of this note. If this note is not paid at maturity and the same is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, we agree to pay an additional sum of ten per cent of the amount then due as attorney fee, and it is agreed by all parties that the time of the payment of this note may be extended without notice thereof.

                               "Weatherby Co-opp Assn
                                  "By J. D. Chisham, Mgr
                               "Ardy Redman
                               "J. A. Parton,
                               "T. F. Warner,
                               "J. Wesley Taylor."
                

The answer is as follows:

"Come now the defendants in the above entitled cause and for their answer to the petition of plaintiff herein filed, say that they deny each and every allegation as therein contained, except what is hereinafter admitted to be true.

"Defendants admit that they signed the note described in plaintiff's petition, but signed said note with the understanding and agreement with plaintiff's cashier, that they were not to be bound individually, but were signing only for the accommodation of the plaintiff.

"Defendants further say that said note was signed without any consideration whatsoever passing to said defendants.

"Defendants further state that it was understood and agreed between themselves and Earle Minor, cashier of plaintiff bank, that when the note sued on was signed by these defendants, that they were signing only for the accommodation of plaintiff bank, and that only the Weatherby Co-operative Association, a corporation of which they were directors and agents were to be bound by their signatures, and that said defendants signed said note as agents and officials of said Weatherby Co-operative Association in their official capacity, for the purpose of binding only said corporation.

"Defendants further answering say that the note sued on is a renewal of a note or notes held by plaintiff against the Weatherby Co-operative Association, and no consideration whatsoever having passed to these defendants, that said note as to these defendants was and is without consideration."

The reply alleged that the plaintiff bank loaned the Weatherby Association the sum of $700, and that when the note matured defendants and another signed renewal notes for and with the corporation to secure an extension of the time of payment, and that the time for payment was extended; that the defendants signed the note with full knowledge of all the facts and for the purpose of lending their names to the corporation and to secure the extension of time for payment, and denied other allegations of new matter in the answer.

The answer was not verified, but plaintiffs went to trial without objecting to the answer, and, although they objected to all evidence under the plea of non est factum, yet they never at any time objected to such evidence upon the ground that the execution of the note by defendants stood admitted, or that the answer was unverified. No point is made in this court that the answer was not verified.

Plaintiff made a prima facie case, and then defendants all went upon the stand in their own behalf. The first witness, defendant Parton, testified that he was one of the directors of Weatherby Co-operative Association, a corporation, which had executed and delivered two notes to the plaintiff bank, one for $300 and one for $800. When the $300 note came due, Mr. Minor, cashier of the plaintiff bank, told him that the "bank examiner has made a ruling that the board of directors had to sign all of these notes and we began to set up and take notice and none of the boys wanted to sign." "I refused to sign this note and Mr. Minor said we were signing it as a board of directors and not as individuals." "We talked a good while, talked about it, and we agreed to sign this note." "He said we were not binding ourselves. We were just binding the corporation." "He said the bank examiner required all these corporation notes to be signed by the directors." "He said the board has always given an order for the manager to borrow money and by the board signing this we eliminated that and knew just what the manager was borrowing from the Bank." "I signed it because I was a member of the board of the corporation, signed it to bind the corporation."

This witness testified that shortly thereafter the $800 note came due, and without any further talk with Mr. Minor he and the other members of the board signed the $800 note just as they had signed the one for $300. Later, both notes being past due, the $1,100 note was signed as a renewal of both notes and without any conversation with Mr. Minor. That when the $1,100 note was past due, Mr. Minor asked the directors to sign a new note not to be executed by the corporation in order to take up the past-due note. The directors refused to do this, but offered to renew the note with the corporation as a maker.

The evidence of the other defendants was much the same as that given by Mr. Parton. There was evidence on the part of the defendants that,...