First Nat. Bank of Madison v. Sprout

Citation110 N.W. 713,78 Neb. 187
PartiesFIRST NAT. BANK OF MADISON v. SPROUT.
Decision Date05 January 1907
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

78 Neb. 187
110 N.W. 713

FIRST NAT. BANK OF MADISON
v.
SPROUT.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 5, 1907.



Syllabus by the Court.

[110 N.W. 713]

The transferee of a negotiable promissory note, who has purchased the same in the usual course of trade for value, may maintain an action at law against the maker without proof of indorsement.


Commissioners' Opinion. Department No. 2. Appeal from District Court, Madison County; Boyd, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Madison against Charles W. Sprout. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

[110 N.W. 714]

Allen & Reed and Wm. V. Allen, for appellant.

M. B. Foster, for appellee.


JACKSON, C.

Plaintiff sued the defendant to recover on a promissory note. The petition sets out the execution and delivery by the defendant of a note payable to the order of the Eureka Seed Meal Company, and alleges that “Thereafter, and before maturity, the plaintiff, for value, in due course of trade, purchased said promissory note of the said Eureka Seed Meal Company, who then and there indorsed the same as follows: ‘Eureka Seed Meal Company, by A. L. Glover, Manager.’ That the plaintiff is now the owner and holder of said promissory note, and that the same is due and unpaid.” The answer is a general denial. At the trial the plaintiff produced the note, had it identified as an exhibit, and proved that it purchased the same and paid a valuable consideration therefor. It also produced evidence tending to show that the signature to the note was the genuine signature of the defendant. The note was offered and received in evidence, and at the close of the plaintiff's case the trial court, on the motion of the defendant, directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

It appears from the discussion of counsel that the reason which prompted the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant was that the offer of the note in evidence did not include the indorsement of the payee, and because of the failure to prove the indorsement the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Proof of the indorsement, however, under the allegations of the petition and the evidence of ownership, was not indispensable to the plaintiff's case. In Michigan Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Klatt, 2 Neb. (Unof.) 870, 90 N. W. 754, it was held that possession of a promissory note is prima facie evidence of its ownership. That action was one in equity for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, and the holding was in accord with...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT