Farmers National Bank of Oskaloosa v. Stanton
Decision Date | 03 May 1921 |
Docket Number | 33182 |
Citation | 182 N.W. 647,191 Iowa 433 |
Parties | FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF OSKALOOSA, Appellee, v. ALBERT STANTON et al., Appellants |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--D. W. HAMILTON, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover from defendants the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff upon a promissory note. Trial to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Thomas J. Bray and John E. Lake, for appellants.
Burrell & Devitt, McCoy & McCoy, and David S. David, for appellee.
The action is brought upon a promissory note for $ 5,000 and interest, executed by the defendants and made payable to the order of the Lower System of Merchandising. It bears date of August 23, 1916, and is made payable six months thereafter. Embodied in the instrument is a clause as follows:
"And we hereby authorize the holder hereof to extend the payment of the same or any part thereof from time to time by reception of interest in advance or otherwise without impairing our several or joint liabilities."
Alleging that it is the owner of this note, and that the debt is wholly unpaid, the plaintiff bank asks judgment thereon.
Defendant admits the making of the note, but denies all liability thereon. By way of affirmative answer, the defendants plead that the note is nonnegotiable, is wholly without consideration, and was obtained from them by fraud. They allege that the same was given for 375 shares of the capital stock in a corporation known as the Lower System of Merchandising; and that such purchase was made and the note given at the solicitation and by the procurement of Robert Green, W. E. Lower, and G. J. Thomas, officers of said corporation, who falsely represented to the defendants the financial standing and condition of the corporation. They further allege that they believed and relied upon said representations, and in reliance thereon gave the note in suit; that, in truth and in fact, said corporation proved to be a mere sham, without capital or assets; and that the shares of stock were absolutely worthless.
Replying to this defense, the plaintiff alleges that it purchased the note in due course for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any infirmities therein or of the existence of any defense thereto. It further alleges that defendants made the note, knowing that it was to be negotiated to the plaintiff, and with such knowledge assured the plaintiff that the note was all right, and by reason thereof defendants are now estopped to plead or prove the defenses set up in their answer.
The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount of the note.
Notwithstanding the very extended briefs of counsel on either side, an examination of the record leads us to conclude that the result of this appeal must turn principally upon few propositions. So far as the case depends in any degree on the settlement of disputed facts, the verdict of the jury would seem to be final, and we shall not attempt their discussion. The debatable questions in this court are those arising upon exceptions taken to the court's charge to the jury.
I. Among other things, the court instructed as follows:
Referring again to the plaintiff's plea of estoppel, the court, in Paragraph 10, used the following language (the italics are ours):
Still further, upon the same topic, the court again charged:
To this was added Paragraph 20, as follows:
"You are instructed that, if you find from the evidence that, at the time of the execution of said note by the defendants, that they had knowledge of the fact that said note was to be sold to the plaintiff bank, and acquiesced therein, and that, at the time of the transfer of said note to the plaintiff bank, the cashier of said plaintiff bank was advised that the defendants had notice of the fact that said note was to be sold to said bank, and that the bank, in purchasing said note, relied upon the assurance given to said bank that the defendants acquiesced in the bank purchasing the said note, then and in that event, if you so find from a preponderance of the evidence, the defendants would be estopped from asserting any defense to said note upon the ground of fraud or misrepresentations, and if you so find, your verdict must be for the plaintiff in the sum of the amount of said note, together with interest from the date of execution thereof."
Before entering upon a discussion of the instructions, it may be well to say that the defendant's evidence was such as fairly tended to show that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial