First Nat. Bank of Blaine v. Blake

• Citation: 60 F. 78
• Decision Date: 19 February 1894
• Docket Number: 1,976.
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF BLAINE v. BLAKE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

60 F. 78

FIRST NAT. BANK OF BLAINE v. BLAKE.

No. 1,976.

United States Circuit Court, D. Oregon.

February 19, 1894

Harrison G. Platt, for plaintiff.

Franklin P. Mays, for defendant.

BELLINGER District Judge.

She complaint alleges that on April 18, 1890, the defendant made and delivered his promissory note to N. A. Cornish, whereby he promised to pay, on April 2, 1892, after date, to the order of Cornish $3,419.50 with interest. This note was indorsed and transferred by Cornish to the plaintiff before maturity, and the plaintiff is alleged to be the owner and holder of it for value. The answer alleges that the note was executed and delivered on the 2d day of April, 1891, and was in consideration of a contract entered into at the same time between the defendant on the one part and Cornish and others of the other part, by the terms of which it was agreed, in effect, that if Cornish and those associated with him in his contract with the defendant, failed to protect certain real estate, which was a subject of speculation between the parties, (and on account of which the defendant had paid such parties $3,419.50, and gave the note in question for a further like sum,) from the lien of a certain mortgage thereby forfeiting the title and interest of Cornish and the other parties of the one part in said contract to such real estate, the promissory note in question should be surrendered up to the defendant. It is alleged that the note and contract were parts of one transaction; that Cornish and his associates failed in their agreement as to the land in question, in consequence of which the defendant lost the $3,419.50 paid by him, and became entitled to have the note sued on surrendered, the consideration therefor having failed. It is further alleged that, at the time of the transfer of the note to the plaintiff, Cornish was the duly elected, qualified, and acting president and general manager of the plaintiff bank, and that both he and the plaintiff had full knowledge of all the facts alleged. The plaintiff demurs to the answer.

In order that there may be a complete determination of the rights of the parties upon the demurrer, it was agreed upon the argument that the court may consider the following additional facts as if they were set out in the answer:

'(1) During all the times in question Cornish was the president and general manager of the plaintiff bank, and as such was duly authorized to discount notes, and, generally, to act for the plaintiff in such matters. (2) Cornish, immediately upon receipt of the note, with full notice of its imperfection, transferred it by indorsement to plaintiff. (3) In the transfer of such note, Cornish was the sole person who acted in behalf of any one.'

Upon these facts, is the plaintiff a...