Hauks v. Brown

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

79 Iowa 560

44 N.W. 811

HAUKS

v.BROWN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 11, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Madison county; 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.Steele, Leonard & Wainwright, for appellant.

Eli Wilkin, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

1. The note in suit was given on the 13th day of December, 1887, for the sum of $150, and interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. It was payable on or before the 1st day of January, 1889, to N. A. Hayden or bearer, and was purchased by plaintiff about the 23d day of December, 1887, for the sum of $135. 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 100 bushels of Bohemian oats from 20 bushels he had purchased, and would make from them $1,200 or $1,400, and advised appellant to purchase some. It was finally agreed that appellant should purchase 15 bushels of the oats, at $10 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 30 bushels of oats were to be sold for him, at $10 per bushel. Said agreement was as follows: “No. 39. Capital stock, $100,000. A Bond. Home Office. From Napoleon, O. The Crawford, Henry and Williams County Seed Company. Incorporated under the laws of Ohio, Sept. 1st, 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 60 bushels of Bohemian oats for Mr. Chas. Hayden, at $10 per bushel, less 25 per cent. commission, on or before Nov. 1st, 1888. In testimony whereof the said Crawford, Henry & Williams County Seed Co. has caused this bond to be signed and sealed by the secretary of said company, this 22d 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. THE CRAWFORD, HENRY & WILLIAMS CO. SEED CO. Per O. H. BROSINGTON, Secretary. [L. S.]” The note in suit was given, and appellant became entitled to have sold under the terms of the so-called “bond,” 30 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 100 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 plai...