Harris v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 23 February 1915
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HARRIS v. JOHNSON.

93 A. 126

89 Conn. 128

HARRIS

v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 23, 1915.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Edward L. Smith, Judge.

Action by Hugh C. Harris against William D. Johnson. A verdict for plaintiff was directed, and defendant appeals. Error, and new trial ordered.

Stewart N. Dunning, of Hartford, and Charles F. Roberts, of New Haven, for appellant. Joseph L. Barbour, of Hartford, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The plaintiff's cause of action is founded upon a negotiable promissory note for $550. The note is in the following form: $550.00. New York, Sept. 23, 1911.

"On Sept. 10, 1912, after date I promise to pay to the order of C. Frank Doebler five hundred fifty 00 dollars at office of Watson & Kristeller, 100 William St., N. X., with interest at 5 per cent. per annum. Value received.

"Wm. D. Johnson."

It came to the plaintiff by indorsements about two months before it was due. The consideration for the transfer was $400. The answer avers that on September 23, 1911, this note, with a large number of others and a written agreement of that date, were procured from the defendant by C. Frank Doebler and Frederick W. Kristeller by conspiracy, fraud, and duress. It is averred that all these notes were to be kept in possession of Kristeller, the defendant's attorney, until the sum of $100,000 from a certain franchise became due and was paid. It is also averred that when the notes were executed the defendant was not indebted to Doebler, and that the plaintiff is not the bona ride holder of the note in question. These allegations were denied by the reply.

After the evidence had all been introduced, the court, upon the motion of the plaintiff, instructed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff. This instruction is one of the assignments of error. The defendant introduced evidence tending to prove his allegations and claims that the note was obtained by fraud and conspiracy, and that it was given without any valid consideration and was negotiated by Doebler in bad faith.

Without going into details of the testimony, it is sufficient to state that the defendant testified that in 1911 he was interested in procuring a franchise for the construction of a dam at Austin, Tex., to cost $500,000, and that he had then expended about $75,000 in attempting to secure this privilege. At that time one C. Frank Doebler, who was the payee of the note now in controversy, was in the defendant's employ upon a salary of $50 per week. In January, 1911, Doebler ascertained that the Austin franchise was to be taken in the individual name of the defendant, instead of the name of a company in which Doebler claimed to have an interest. He then wrote a letter to the defendant and claimed that his salary should be increased to $75 per week, and that he should receive $50,000 of the profits which might accrue from the construction and operation of the dam at Austin. Doebler also demanded that the defendant should make an assignment of the Austin franchise to a corporation in which Doebler claimed an interest. Johnson did not then accede to this request, but it now appears that on August 29, 1911, the defendant executed a document by which he agreed that, in the event of a favorable vote on the Austin franchise, the same should not' be held by Johnson individually, but should be held by him as trustee for a construction company in which Doebler claimed he was interested.

It is undisputed that on September 23, 1911, an agreement was made between the defendant Johnson, C. Frank Doebler, and Harry Lee Zeigler. It appears by this agreement that Johnson obligated himself individually to pay and turn over to C. Frank Doebler, coincident with the execution of this agreement:

"(1) The sum of $369, which sum was fixed as an amount due and owing him.

"(2) The sum of $500, evidenced by two certain promissory notes of $250 each, maturing October 14, 1911, and October 28, 1911.

"(3) The sum of $1,950, evidenced by 26 certain promissory notes of $75 each, the first of which matures September 30, 1911, and one of the remainder weekly thereafter.

"(4) The sum of $650, evidenced by 7 certain promissory notes, 6 of which are for $100 and one for $50, the first of which matures on October 16, 1911, and one of the remainder monthly thereafter with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum.

"(5) The sum of $3,850, evidenced by 7 certain promissory notes of $550 each, with interest at 5 per cent. per annum, the first of which matures on the 16th day of April, 1912, and one of the remainder monthly thereafter.

"(6) To make, execute, and deliver an assignment of the sum of $15,000 with interest at 5 per cent. per annum, chargeable out of the first or initial payment of $100,000 agreed to be made by the said city of Austin, Tex., on the completion of work under and in accordance with said franchise."

It is also conceded that upon the day this agreement was made the defendant assigned to Doebler $30,000 in addition to the amount he was to receive under...