First Nat. Bank v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 23 October 1905 |
| Docket Number | 2,152. |
| Citation | 141 F. 926 |
| Parties | FIRST NAT. BANK OF DUNCAN v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Potter Bowman & Potter, for plaintiff in error.
William I. Gilbert and Edward H. Bond, for defendant in error,
Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
Lou Anderson, plaintiff below and defendant in error here instituted this suit in the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Southern District, against the First National Bank of Duncan, plaintiff in error, to recover $1,666.10, balance alleged to be due her on a certain promissory note made by one J, A. Thomas on July 11, 1900, payable to the order of the bank and by it on the same day indorsed and delivered to her. The answer tendered the issue that the bank's indorsement was solely for the accommodation of the plaintiff and without any consideration moving it thereto, On the issues so tendered the defendant, admitting plaintiff's prima facie right of recovery, assumed the burden of proving the affirmative defense set up in the answer. The case was tried to a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for the amount sued for with interest. The United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, after a consideration of the case, affirmed the judgment, and it is now before us on writ of error to secure a reversal of the case.
The main and important assignment of error is that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict at the close of the evidence in favor of the defendant, and that the United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory erred in not so ruling. The facts are simple: J. T. Jeans, the cashier of defendant bank, is practically the only witness as to the material facts determinative of the right of recovery. He testifies, in substance, that the plaintiff, a relative of his wife, who either had money on deposit in his bank or was about to collect some, requested him to invest it for her so that she could get 'something out of it.' He represented to her that J. A. Thomas, a farmer and cattle dealer, would like to borrow it, and testifies that he went over the matter with Thomas; took a list of his collateral and submitted the whole matter to the plaintiff and asked her what she wanted him to do about it; she said she would leave it all to him; that whatever he though best, to go ahead and do it.
The foregoing evidence is without any contradiction and establishes beyond question that the plaintiff constituted Jeans, the cashier of the bank, her agent, with unlimited discretion to invest her money for her. Pursuant to this authority Jeans made the loan of $2,000 to Thomas for one year, taking his note for the principal, with interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per month added, making the face of the note $2,480. This note was made payable to the order of the bank and forthwith indorsed and delivered to plaintiff. Jeans explains that the reason for making the note payable to the bank instead of . to the plaintiff directly, was that in case the maker, Thomas, should be disposed to pleas usury, owing to the unwarranted interest contracted for, a suit in the name of the bank would, in some manner imperceptible to us, afford immunity against such a plea. However that may be, the note was in fact made payable to the order of the bank, and according to the allegations of the complaint and in harmony with the proof the bank on the day of its date 'transferred and indorsed it to the plaintiff. ' On the same day, July 11, 1900, the maker, Thomas, made and executed a chattel mortgage conveying a large number of cattle, hogs, mules, and horses to plaintiff directly, as collateral security for the payment of the note in question. The evidence permits of no doubt that the money which formed the consideration for the note belonged to plaintiff; that she authorized Jeans, the defendant's cashier, to make the loan in question to Thomas; and that he acted as her agent with plenary powers in the transaction. The indorsement in question was only a means, inspired by questionable motives, doubtless, of transferring the legal title to the note to plaintiff in whom the equitable right belonged. The indorsement, therefore, was only for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Farmers State Bank v. Haun
...the payment of commercial paper of the bank; an accommodated party has no right to sue the accommodation party, 8 C. J. 259; Bank v. Duncan, 141 F. 926-8; Williams Hasshagen, (Cal.) 137 P. 9; Green v. McCord, 85 So. 750. Lack of consideration may be shown as between the accommodating and ac......
-
Vance v. Chapman
...S. 634-653, 17 S. Ct. 439, 41 L. Ed. 855; Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499-507, 13 S. Ct. 148, 36 L. Ed. 1059; First National Bank of Duncan v. Anderson (C. C. A. 8) 141 F. 926; Hatch v. Johnson Loan & Trust Co. (C. C.) 79 F. 828; Yardley v. Clothier (C. C. A. 3) 51 F. 506; Peterson v. Til......
-
Clikas v. Steele
...Monroe v. State Bank, 181 Wis. 19, 193 N.W. 991; First National Bank v. Reinman, 93 Ark. 376, 125 S.W. 443; First National Bank of Duncan v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 141 F. 926; Newark Trust Co. v. Kriebel, 49 Cal.App. 614, 193 P. In Long v. Gwin, 202 Ala. 358, 80 So. 440, the court held that as b......
-
Farmers' State Bank of Riverton v. Gentle
...accommodation. 8 C. J. 259; Bank v. Bank, 95 U.S. 557; Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U.S. 346; U. S. Nat'l Bank v. Bk. 64 F. 986; 1st Nat'l Bank v. Duncan, 141 F. 926. consideration passed for the notes. Shadburne v. Daly, (Cal.) 18 P. 403; Williams v. Hasshagen, (Cal.) 137 P. 111; 3 R. C. L. 1120......