Giller v. First Nat. Bank of Thief River Falls
| Decision Date | 17 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 22599.,22599. |
| Citation | 151 Minn. 414,186 N.W. 816 |
| Parties | GILLER v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF THIEF RIVER FALLS et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Pennington County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.
Action by Bertha Giller against the First National Bank of Thief River Falls, Minn. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals. Order affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Plaintiff executed a contract with the defendant bank whereby she agreed to assign certain notes and mortgages to the bank to secure the payment of her son's indebtedness and to indemnify the other defendant against loss as surety on her son's bail bond. In consideration thereof the bank agreed to surrender certain insurance policies it held as security for her son's debt and to have its codefendant execute the bond. The contract was prepared by plaintiff's attorney and after its execution its several conditions were performed. In an action for the conversion of the notes and mortgages assigned the contract was pleaded as a bar. Plaintiff sought to avoid it on the ground that her signature was procured by fraud. Held, that the evidence was not so clear, strong, or persuasive as to justify a jury in finding that plaintiff had been induced to execute the contract by fraud. E. M. Stanton and H. O. Chommie, both of Thief River Falls, for appellant.
Wm. J. Brown, of Thief River Falls, and Julius J. Olson, of Warren, for respondents.
Plaintiff is the mother of Maurice Giller, who, in January, 1919, was a merchant at Thief River Falls. The First National Bank of that place held his unsecured note for $6,640. His store and stock of goods were insured. On January 7th a fire destroyed the greater portion of his stock and damaged the building. On the following day he assigned his insurance policies to the bank at its request as security for his note. On February 24th he was arrested at St. Paul, charged with the crime of arson, and taken to Thief River Falls. His mother, who lived in St. Paul, accompanied him. They arrived on the morning of February 25th. She was anxious to keep him out of jail and was informed that, in order to do so, it would be necessary to obtain bail for him. She immediately sent for the defendant C. L. Hansen, who was president of the bank. She and her family had long been patrons of the bank and she was well acquainted with Hansen. She asked him to execute her son's bail bond. He advised her to consult an attorney, and, with his approval, G. Howard Smith was retained. He appeared for Maurice and waived a preliminary examination. Bail was fixed at $5,000. Hansen declined to go on a bond of that amount. Smith exerted himself during the day to have the amount reduced, but without success. Hansen asserts that he informed plaintiff that, if the bond was reduced and he signed it, he would have to be indemnified against loss, and payment of Maurice's note to the bank would also have to be secured. Plaintiff admits the former, but denies the latter, portion of the assertion. On the following day bail was reduced to $3,000. Plaintiff, Hansen, and Smith met in the afternoon and signed a number of documents prepared by Smith. Among them was a contract between plaintiff and the bank whereby she agreed to assign notes and mortgages, amounting to $11,300, as collateral security for the payment of her son's note and to secure Hansen against loss as one of the sureties on the bail bond. In consideration thereof the bank agreed to surrender the insurance policies it held and to have Hansen execute the bond. All these conditions were severally performed. Thereafter Maurice was tried and convicted, and involuntary bankruptcy proceedings instituted against him resulted in his being adjudged a bankrupt. A little later plaintiff demanded the return of her recurities. Being refused, she brought this action, charging the defendants with their conversion. She recovered a verdict for their face value, and, upon defendants' alternative motion, judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict was ordered, and plaintiff appealed.
The vital issue was whether the contract of February 26th was procured by fraud. The question presented on this appeal is whether the evidence will support a verdict that it was. To relate the evidence at length would unduly extend this opinion. We merely outline its principal features.
Hansen went to St. Paul after the fire to get plaintiff to secure the payment of her son's note, but she refused. Maurice had bought the salvage. To enable him to get money to make the purchase, plaintiff assigned one of the mortgages in question to the bank. It held this assignment when Maurice was arrested, but the loan had not yet been made, and consequently the assignment was of no effect. The insurance policies were of doubtful value as security. If Maurice was guilty of arson, they could not be collected. If he was adjudged a bankrupt, the bank's right to retain them would be dubious. The arrest of her son greatly disturbed plaintiff. Until she secured bail for him, she was under a nervous and mental strain. She asserts that by reason thereof she was in no condition to transact business on February 25th and 26th.
Plaintiff is a Russian by birth, came to this country when she was 18 years old, and never attended our schools. She professes not to understand the English language very well, but a reading of her testimony hardly bears her out in this. Her husband had been in the mercantile business at Thief River Falls for several years. After his death she continued the business in partnership with Maurice. She had more business experience than most women have. The partnership was dissolved in February, 1918, owing the bank several thousand dollars, Maurice's note of $6,640 represented $4,000 subsequently advanced to him by the bank and a balance of $2,640 upon the original partnership...
To continue reading
Request your trial