Haggard v. Petterson

• Decision Date: 28 January 1899
• Citation: 107 Iowa 417,78 N.W. 53
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: HAGGARD v. PETTERSON.

107 Iowa 417

78 N.W. 53

HAGGARD

v.PETTERSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 28, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Kossuth county; Lot Thomas, Judge.

Action upon a promissory note. Trial to jury, verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.E. C. Raymond and B. E. Kelly, for appellant.

W. L. Joslyn and Sullivan & McMahon, for appellee.

WATERMAN, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover on a promissory note executed by defendant. The defenses set up are (1) a general denial; (2) want of consideration, and that plaintiff, who is an indorser, is not a bona fide holder; and (3) that the execution of the note was procured by fraud. The note was payable to the Farmers' Supply Company, and was procured from defendant by one J. L. Sutton, who claimed to be an agent of the company. Plaintiff claims the fact to be that the note in suit, together with another for an equal amount ($125), was given in consideration of the appointment of defendant as an agent of said company, with the right to sell its machinery and supplies within certain territory. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the Farmers' Supply Company is a mythical concern; that he is an ignorant man, unable to read or write; that he did not know he was signing a note when he affixed his signature to this instrument; that he wrote his name at Sutton's request, merely to aid the latter in finding him again, should he desire to secure him as an agent. Upon these issues the case was tried.

1. The first ground of complaint is that the court overruled defendant's challenge to one Johnson, who was called as a juror. It is said in the original abstract that, when this challenge was interposed, plaintiff's peremptory challenges had been exhausted. In an amended abstract appellee denies that the record shows this fact. If there was no showing in the record that the juror could not have been dismissed peremptorily, the error, if any, in overruling the challenge for cause, was without prejudice. Barnes v. Town of Newton, 46 Iowa, 657; State v. George, 62 Iowa, 682, 18 N. W. 298;State v. Brownlee, 84 Iowa, 473, 51 N. W. 25. If there is any question as to the record on this matter, and there may, perhaps, be, this ruling of the court is sustainable upon another ground. The juror was examined as to his feeling or bias in the case. The challenge was in these words: “The plaintiff challenges the juror for cause.” The challenge was too indefinite, in not stating the grounds. Davis v. Insurance Co., 96 Iowa, 70, 64 N. W. 687;Bonney v. Cocke, 61 Iowa, 303, 16 N. W. 139.

2. Next, it is said there was error in permitting defendant to answer, over plaintiff's objection, this question: “Did you ever get any machinery?” The argument is that no claim is made that the notes were given for machinery; that they were given to purchase an agency. Be this as it may, defendant's claim was that he never received any consideration whatever, and it certainly could not have prejudiced plaintiff for him to specify machinery as something he did not get. The supply company pretended to deal in machinery. The agency was a mere right to buy of it for sale to others, or to have orders in favor of others accepted and filled by it. The negative answer to this question by defendant tended to show that he had never acted as agent. In either view, we think plaintiff was not improperly harmed by this ruling.

3. Over plaintiff's objection, the trial court permitted defendant to introduce in evidence articles published in the newspapers of Algona, where plaintiff lived and did business, and also current reports, of a general character, which circulated in that community. The tenor of these publications and reports was to...