Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Haning
| Decision Date | 06 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 20554.,20554. |
| Parties | FARMERS' NAT. BANK v. HANING. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County, Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by the Farmers' National Bank against Orga M. Haning and another. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant named, and such defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Barrow & Barrow, of Vandalia, and Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, for appellant.
V. S. Smith, of Bowling Green, for respondent.
This is an action upon a negotiable promissory note, brought by the Farmers' National Bank, a corporation, of Blue Earth, Minn., the payee, against F. W. Haning and Orga M. Haning, husband and wife, as makers. The note, dated November 1, 1920, was for the principal sum of $929, and was due three years from date, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum.
The petition was in conventional form. The separate answers of the two defendants were identical, in that each contained an admission of the execution of the note sued on, coupled with a plea of failure of consideration, except for a further plea of discharge in bankruptcy in the answer of defendant F. W. Haning.
After a trial of the issues, there was a directed verdict in favor of defendant F. W. Haning, based upon his prior discharge in bankruptcy. As to the other parties, the verdict of the jury was for plaintiff, and against defendant Orga M. Haning, for the principal sum of the note; and, from the judgment duly rendered, she alone has appealed.
It appears from the evidence that, prior to their acquisition of a residence in Pike County, Mo., in March, 1926, defendants had lived on a farm near the city of Blue Earth, Minn., the situs of plaintiff bank. In 1919, defendant F. W. Haning had purchased certain pure bred Hereford cattle from the firm of Moore & Son, in Minnesota, and had given his notes in payment therefor. It was agreed between the parties that the cattle were not to be delivered at the time of the purchase, but were to be retained by Moore & Son until a subsequent date. Later, when delivery was attempted to be made, the truck in which the animals were being transported broke down, and all of the cattle escaped, save for one heifer, which was recovered and delivered to Haning. A part of the controversy between the parties has to do with this particular heifer, however; the contention of defendants being that she was not the animal purchased, and that her certificate of registration was irregular.
Mr. Moore, of Moore & Son, was a stockholder in plaintiff bank, and was indebted to it in divers and sundry amounts. A day or two after the notes were given by Haning, and before maturity, Moore & Son indorsed them to plaintiff bank. Defendants insist that such transfer of the notes was for the purpose of securing the indebtedness of Moore & Son to the bank, while plaintiff contends, to the contrary, that it acquired them in good faith, and without notice of any claim of infirmity.
At any rate, on November 1, 1920, at the request of plaintiff bank, defendants jointly executed the note in suit, in renewal of the notes heretofore given to Moore & Son, and indorsed by the latter to plaintiff bank, and secured the same by placing a second deed of trust against their farm. Whether the note was given upon the promise of plaintiff's cashier to see to it that the dispute between defendants and Moore & Son relative to the delivery of the cattle would be adjusted, and to relieve the bank of the necessity of...
To continue reading
Request your trial