Farmers' Bank v. Stamper

• Decision Date: 30 April 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14474.,14474.
• Citation: 250 S.W. 959
• Parties: FARMERS' BANK OF FARLEY v. STAMPER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

250 S.W. 959

FARMERS' BANK OF FARLEY v. STAMPER.

No. 14474.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 30, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Platte County; A. D. Burnes, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Farmers' Bank of Farley against W. Stamper. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler, of Kansas City, for appellant.

John D. Wendorff, of Kansas City, and James H. Hull, of Platte City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, P. J.

This is a suit upon a negotiable promissory note for $2,115, dated December 5, 1918, due 6 months after date executed by defendant, made payable to his order, and indorsed by defendant at the time he executed it. The note was delivered to one J. E. Purtell, who the next day sold and indorsed it, in the regular course of business, for value received, to the plaintiff bank.

The answer set up, first, a general denial; next a denial under oath that defendant executed or indorsed said note.

The answer then asserted that on or about the 8th of December, 1918, defendant executed a note for $2,250 as the purchase price of 15 shares of Ruddy Packing Company stock sold to defendant by or through its agent, J. E. Purtell, at the price of $150 per share; that as a part of the contract of purchase of said stock it was agreed, in a memorandum prepared and signed by defendant and by said Ruddy Packing Company, through its agent, J. E. Purtell, that if defendant, within 12 months from the date of said purchase, should decide he did not want the stock and should return the same, then the note would be returned to the maker, which memorandum was "firmly attached to said note and made a part thereof."

The answer then asserted that, if defendant signed the note, the same had been mutilated and changed by reducing the amount from $2,250 to $2,115 and by removing from odd note the aforesaid memorandum agreement providing for the return of the stock, "which was firmly attached to the note."

The answer then set up a tender of tin stock to the Ruddy Packing Company, and a demand upon it for a return of the note defendant executed.

Plaintiff is engaged in the general banking business at Farley in Platte county, Mo., and defendant is a farmer in that county.

The evidence discloses that on December 5, 1918, two stock salesmen, one of whom was J. E. Purtell, at defendant's home sold him 15 shares of stock in the Ruddy Packing Company for the note in suit. The stock was being sold at $150 per share, which would have amounted to $2,250, but, as defendant in giving his note objected to paying interest, the amount thereof at 3 per cent. for one year was deducted, leaving the amount for which the note was given, $2,115.

Defendant had previously purchased five shares of stock from these parties at $150 per share and had given his note for same, which seems to have been paid without question by him.

Plaintiff's evidence showed that the next day Purtell brought the note to the bank, indorsed it, and sold it to the bank in the regular course of business, the bank discounting it only 2 per cent. and paying cash therefor. The evidence in plaintiff's behalf identified the note, the signature of defendant, his indorsement thereon, and also Purtell's indorsement. The note was then introduced in evidence. At the time it was sold to plaintiff there was no memorandum agreement attached thereto providing for a return of the stock and cancellation of the note, nor anything to indicate that such a thing ever existed, nor did plaintiff have any notice or knowledge of such.

Defendant introduced evidence to the effect that the note defendant executed was for $2,250, and not for $2,115. There was no evidence, however, which in any way tended to show that the note sued on had been changed or mutilated in any way. Defendant's evidence as to the memorandum relative to the return of the stock was that this memorandum was on a piece of paper attached to the note by means of a wire clip or metal "clasp"; out there was no evidence whatever tending in any way to show that plaintiff had any notice or knowledge of the existence of any such memorandum.

After the note became due and after plaintiff had notified defendant that it was past due, defendant says he, at the direction of his attorney, offered to the Ruddy Packing Company to return the stock.

There was evidence in behalf of plaintiff by expert witnesses that the signature of defendant to the note and the indorsement on the back were his genuine signatures; also that no changes, alterations or mutilations of said note were made thereon.

That the bank purchased and paid for said note in due course of business, before maturity and in good faith, and that there was no suspicious circumstance connected with the bank's acquiring of said note, do not seem to be controverted in the testimony. And nothing short of actual knowledge on the part of plaintiff of the alleged memorandum or knowledge of such facts as would indicate bad faith on plaintiff's part in purchasing said note could defeat plaintiff's right to recover. Simpson v. Van Laningham, 267 Mo. 286, 183 S. W. 324; Keim v. Vette, 167 Mo. 389, 399, 67 S. W. 223.

Plaintiff's petition alleged the execution, indorsement, and delivery of the note before maturity by defendant to Purtell and his subsequent indorsement and delivery before maturity to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff is now the rightful owner and holder of said note.

It is urged that the court erred in permitting plaintiff to show that it paid value received for...