Farnsworth v. Burdick
Decision Date | 10 April 1915 |
Docket Number | 19,136 |
Citation | 147 P. 863,94 Kan. 749 |
Parties | E. H. FARNSWORTH, Appellee, v. WM. S. BURDICK et al., Appellants |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided. January, 1915.
Appeal from Allen district court; OSCAR FOUST, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
PROMISSORY NOTE--Form of Indorsement--Indorsee Became Holder in Due Course. Under the negotiable instruments law (Gen. Stat 1909, §§ 5247-5446), a writing in these words, "I Hear By assine this note over to E. H. Farnsworth this the Nov. 1st, 1910," signed by the payee, on the back of a negotiable promissory note, complete and regular on its face, accompanied by delivery to the person named in the writing, is an indorsement of the note; and one who takes the note in good faith, for value, before it is due, without notice that it had been previously dishonored, and who, at the time he takes it, has no notice of any infirmity in the note or defect in the title of the person negotiating it, becomes the holder thereof in due course, and holds it free from any defect of title of the payee, and free from defenses available to the maker against the payee, and may enforce payment of the note for the full amount thereof, against the maker.
H. A. Ewing, S. A. Gard, and G. R. Gard, all of Iola, for the appellants.
R. H. Bennett, and R. E. Cullison, both of Iola, for the appellee.
This is an action to recover on a promissory note. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.
The defendants, Wm. S. Burdick and A. M. Ewing, in consideration for a tract of land in Mercer county, Missouri, gave a stock of goods in Iola, Kan., a negotiable promissory note for the sum of $ 500, signed by all the defendants, and assumed an encumbrance on the land for the sum of $ 890. The trade was made with, and the note given to, J. A. Wheeler, who negotiated the note to the plaintiff by writing on the back thereof: "I Hear By assine this note over to E. H. Farnsworth this the Nov. 1st, 1910," signed it, and delivered it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the holder of the note before it was due, without any notice that it had been previously dishonored. He took it in good faith, and for value. At the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the note or defect in the title of J. A. Wheeler. The note is complete and regular on its face. The defense is, failure of consideration for the note. Is this defense good?
Prior to the passage of the negotiable instruments law (Gen. Stat. 1909, §§ 5247-5446), this court, in Hatch v. Barrett, 34 Kan. 223, 8 P. 129, said:
(Syl.)
This principle was followed in McCrum v. Corby, 11 Kan. 464; Hadden v. Rodkey, 17 Kan. 429; and Briggs v. Latham, 36 Kan. 205, 13 P. 393. At the time these decisions were rendered, the weight of authority in this country was that such a writing on the back of a note was an indorsement which cut off the equities and defenses of the maker available against the payee.
The negotiable-instruments law reduces to a certainty many things that prior to that date were in confusion. This law contains several definitions. One is, that "'delivery' means transfer of possession, actual or constructive, from one person to another." Another is, "'holder' means the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof." Still another is, "'indorsement' means an indorsement completed by delivery." (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 5248.)
Section 5283 reads in part:
" An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof."
The note sued on was negotiated within the meaning of this section. It was transferred from Wheeler to Farnsworth, and he became the holder thereof.
Section 5284 reads:
This indorsement, if it is an indorsement, was written on the note itself.
Other sections of the statute are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
...Jacobs v. Gibson, 77 Mo. App. 244; Maddox v. Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 45 S.W. 688; Leahy v. Haworth, 141 Fed. 850; Farnsworth v. Burdick, 94 Kan. 749, 147 Pac. 863; Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 101 N.W. 417, 68 L.R.A. 146; Davis v. Francisco, 11 Mo. 572, 49 Am. Dec. 98; Prichard v. Strike, ......
-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
... ... Jacobs v. Gibson, 77 Mo.App. 244; Maddox v ... Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 45 S.W. 688; Leahy v ... Haworth, 141 F. 850; Farnsworth v. Burdick, 94 ... Kan. 749, 147 P. 863; Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis ... 149, 101 N.W. 417, 68 L. R. A. 146; Davis v ... Francisco, 11 Mo ... ...
-
Leach v. Urschel
...he clearly indicates by appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity." (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 6590.) ( Farnsworth v. Burdick, 94 Kan. 749, 147 P. 863; Plow Co. v. Losey, 104 Kan. 400, 179 P. Now it cannot be said that the recital on the back of this note indicated any int......
-
Mitchell v. Brinkman
...to the persons named in the writing, is an indorsement of the note, following Farnsworth v. Burdick, 94 Kan. 749, 147 P. 863; id. 95 Kan. 642, 147 P. 863; and part of paragraph 2 of the syllabus and of the concluding paragraph of the opinion in Nelson v. Southworth, 93 Kan. 532, 144 P. 835,......