Hamilton v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 09 February 1932
• Docket Number: No. 41097.,41097.
• Citation: 240 N.W. 685
• Parties: HAMILTON v. WILSON ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

240 N.W. 685

HAMILTON

v.WILSON ET AL.

No. 41097.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 9, 1932.

Appeal from District Court, Madison County; E. W. Dingwell, Judge.

Suit on four promissory notes. Defendants pleaded that said notes were given to represent money furnished by plaintiff to be used by defendants for the benefit of both plaintiff and defendants in certain illegal transactions in dealing in so-called margins in corn on the Board of Trade. The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Reversed.Percival & Wilkinson, of Winterset, for appellants.

C. A. Robbins and C. E. Hamilton, both of Winterset, for appellee.

FAVILLE, J.

Appellants admitted the execution of the notes in suit. Appellants operate an oil station. Appellee is an officer of a bank.

Appellants offered evidence tending to show that appellee and appellants entered into an oral agreement by which appellee was to furnish money to the appellants to be used in speculating in corn on the Board of Trade, and that the parties were to divide the profits made in the transactions. Appellants contend that under this arrangement the appellee furnished money to the appellants, and that the appellee himself sometimes took the money to the broker or commission firm handling the business for the parties. Appellants offered evidence tending to show that the notes in suit were given to represent the money so furnished by appellee, and that, inasmuch as the transactions on the Board of Trade were in the names of the appellants, the appellee desired that the notes be given so that appellee might have something to show that he had advanced the money. Appellants also offered testimony tending to show that the parties had no intention to have the corn delivered and were buying it “on a margin” under an illegal contract under Code, § 9895.

At the close of appellants' evidence the appellee moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the appellants' “pleadings have not been established by sufficient evidence.” This motion was sustained.

[1][2] Under familiar rules in such a situation, we must construe the appellants' evidence in the light most favorable to appellants. It is true that there is some conflict in the testimony of appellants, particularly with regard to whether the money was all turned over by appellee in cash or by checks. We think, under the record, the inconsistencies in the evidence were for the consideration of the jury in passing upon the credibility of...