First Nat. Bank v. Hall

• Citation: 108 S.W. 633,129 Mo. App. 286
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK v. HALL.
• Decision Date: 03 March 1908
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

108 S.W. 633

129 Mo. App. 286

FIRST NAT. BANK v. HALL.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 3, 1908.

BILLS AND NOTES — ACTION BY BONA FIDE PURCHASER — SIGNATURE OBTAINED BY FRAUD — NEGLIGENCE.

One signing a note is guilty of negligence, so that he cannot escape liability thereon to a bona fide holder, on the ground of his signature being obtained by fraud, where he was possessed of all his faculties, and, though he could not read, his wife and three sons, who could read, were present, but were not called on to read, and he did not even require the person who presented it, and who was a stranger, to read all of it, but thought he said it was a contract.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Howell County; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank against R. V. Hall. Defendant was granted a new trial, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Orr & Luster, for appellant.

GOODE, J.

This is an action on a negotiable promissory note in the usual form, dated May 4, 1904, for the sum of $126, payable six months after date to the order of F. R. Green, with interest from date at 8 per cent. In defense it was set up in a duly verified answer that defendant did not sign and deliver the note to the payee, F. R. Green. In addition to this plea of non est factum a special defense was pleaded, i. e., that, if the signature to the note was defendant's, it was procured by fraudulent means by Green, the payee, and by the substitution, at the time defendant's signature was subscribed, of the note for a contract he believed he was signing, or through some other trick, scheme, fraud or contrivance practiced to procure his signature without his knowledge or consent. The reply was a general denial. A verdict was returned for plaintiff, but afterwards was set aside by the court on the ground that erroneous instructions had been given in its favor. These instructions advised the jury in substance that, if defendant signed the note sued on, believing and relying on the representations of Green that the paper was a contract appointing defendant agent, instead of a promissory note, but defendant could have had the paper he signed read or explained to him by some member of his family, and neglected to do so, he had omitted to observe reasonable care and could not maintain the defense that his signature was procured by misrepresenting the contents of the instrument.

The note is held by plaintiff, a banking company doing business in Howell county. The evidence shows plaintiff purchased it in due course of business, for value, a short time after its execution, in good faith and without notice or knowledge of any infirmity in the title of Green, who negotiated it to the bank. That plaintiff is a bona fide holder for value, and purchased before maturity in due course of business, is not denied; but the defense relied on is fraud perpetrated by Green in procuring defendant's signature. The facts attending the execution of the note, stating them in the most favorable light for defendant the evidence will justify, were these: Green, the payee, lived at Bentonville, Ark. In April or May, 1904, he was in Howell county, selling a patent hay-baler and appointing agents to sell the same. He there met defendant, who is a resident of the county, and a transaction occurred between them in which the note in suit was signed. The defendant is a farmer who lives 16 miles out of West Plains, the county seat of the county. He swore he could sign his name, but could not read or write. The entire evidence shows he knew nothing of Green at the time in question. Hall said Green came to the former's home, representing that he (Green) was appointing agents to sell his patent hay-baler, and wanted Hall to become an agent. Hall objected, saying he had no learning; but Green said this would make no difference, and asked if three balers might be sent to Hall. Green said, if Hall could not sell them, he (Green) would come and sell them himself; that the arrangement would cost Hall nothing. Hall swore he had no intention of signing a note, but supposed he was signing a contract about the three hay-balers which would be sent him. When the instrument was produced, he asked Green what it was, and the latter said it was nothing but a contract which he had to send to the company so they would forward the balers. Hall never received the balers or heard from Green afterwards. He did not positively deny the signature to the note was his own, and really there is no serious contention as to this. Hall swore the paper produced for him to sign was larger than a note. He said Green left with him two papers like two others which were introduced in evidence as exhibits. One of these exhibits purported to be a contract between the Memphis Machine Works and Green, by which the company covenanted that each hay-baling machine sold should be of certain material and workmanship, and also agreed to obtain favorable freight rates for the shipment of machines from Memphis. The other contract purported to be an instrument by which Green appointed Hall agent for the sale of patent hay-balers in a designated township in Howell county. It recited Hall accepted the agency. Neither of these exhibits was signed by Hall, but he swore the documents Green left with...