Hanks v. Brown

• Decision Date: 11 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 811,79 Iowa 560
• Parties: HANKS v. BROWN
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

44 N.W. 811

79 Iowa 560

HANKS v. BROWN

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 11, 1890

Decided January, 1890.

Appeal from Madison District Court.--HON. J. H. HENDERSON, Judge.

ACTION on a promissory note made by defendant Brown, and indorsed by its payee, the defendant Hayden. There was a trial by jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant Brown appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Steele Leonard & Wainwright, for appellant.

Eli Wilkin, for appellee.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

I.

The note in suit was given on the thirteenth day of December 1887, for the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, and interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent. per annum. It was payable on or before the first day of January, 1889, to N. A. Hayden or bearer, and was purchased by plaintiff about the twenty-third day of December, 1887, for the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars. Appellant claims that it is a part of a gaming contract, and, therefore, void, also that the transaction of which it was a part was against public policy; that plaintiff is not an innocent purchaser for value; and that it is, therefore, void in his hands.

The note was given under circumstances substantially as follows: Two or three weeks before it was given, N. A. Hayden told appellant that he had raised over one hundred bushels of Bohemian oats from twenty bushels he had purchased, and would make from them twelve hundred or fourteen hundred dollars, and advised appellant to purchase some. It was finally agreed that appellant should purchase fifteen bushels of the oats, at ten dollars per bushel, for which he should give his note. In addition to the oats, he was to have the benefit of an agreement by virtue of which thirty bushels of oats were to be sold for him, at ten dollars per bushel. Said agreement was as follows:

"No. 39. Capital stock, $ 100,000. Home Office: Napoleon, O. A bond from the Crawford, Henry and Williams County Seed Company. Incorporated under the laws of Ohio, September 1, 1885, for the production and sale of grain and seed. It is agreed and understood by and between the party named in this bond and said company that the transaction covered by this obligation is of a speculative character, and is not based upon the real value of the grain. Know all men by these presents, that the Crawford, Henry and Williams County Seed Company do hereby agree to sell sixty bushels of Bohemian oats for Mr. Charles Hayden, at ten dollars per bushel, less twenty-five per cent. commission, on or before November 1, 1888. In testimony whereof the said Crawford, Henry and Williams County Seed Company has caused this bond to be signed and sealed by the secretary of said company, this twenty-second day of November, 1887. This company will not be held responsible for any outside contracts made by agents, other than those expressed on face of this bond.

"[L. S.]

"THE CRAWFORD, HENRY &

WILLIAMS CO. SEED CO.,

Per O. H. BRASINGTON, Secretary."

The note in suit was given, and appellant became entitled to have sold, under the terms of the so-called "bond," thirty bushels of oats. In March, 1888, the oats were delivered to him. The details of the agreement need not be set out more fully, although some representations were made to appellant in regard to the prospective profits of the transaction, which probably influenced him. He became a party to the agreement, knowing and understanding all its provisions, and knowing that there was no market for Bohemian oats at the price stated. In making it he relied upon the so-called "bond." He raised about one hundred bushels of oats, but none have been sold under the agreement.

Appellant complains of the refusal of the court to give to the jury certain instructions, defining and explaining gambling contracts. The court charged the jury that the note in suit was fraudulent, and against public policy, and that plaintiff could not recover thereon, unless he was an innocent purchaser for value; but did not authorize them to find that the note was void, as a gambling contract. Section 4029 of the Code is as follows: "All promises, agreements,...