Irish-American Bank v. Ludlum

• Decision Date: 07 April 1892
• Citation: 49 Minn. 255,51 N.W. 1047
• Parties: IRISH-AMERICAN BANK v LUDLUM.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 Minn. 255

51 N.W. 1047

IRISH-AMERICAN BANKvLUDLUM.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 7, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Several assignments of error directed to the rulings of the court below when receiving or excluding testimony, and also when charging the jury, considered and disposed of.

2. The verdict in plaintiff's favor was supported by the evidence.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HOOKER, Judge.

Action by the Irish-American Bank against John Ludlum on promissory notes. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Gilger & Harrison, for appellant.

Rea & Hubachek and R. A. Daly, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

Action upon two promissory notes, one dated December 2d, the other December 18, 1889, each maturing 90 days from date, signed “New York Pie Co., by E. J. White, Manager,” made payable to the order of A. P. Thompson, and indorsed by him. The action grows out of transactions much like those considered in Hodge v. This Defendant, 45 Minn. 290,47 N. W. Rep. 805, and Stevens v. Same, 46 Minn. 160,48 N. W. Rep. 771. In the complaint it was averred that defendant was engaged in business as the New York Pie Company when these notes were executed and delivered; that they were so executed and delivered in defendant's behalf by his duly-authorized agent and manager, White; and that Thompson, the payee, had duly sold, indorsed, and transferred the same to plaintiff, a banking corporation, before maturity, and for value. These allegations were put in issue by defendant's answer, and he therein averred, among other things, that White himself was the pie company, that he made and delivered these notes to Thompson in pursuance of a conspiracy which had been entered into between them to cheat and defraud defendant, and that plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser of the notes, but held and was enforcing the collection thereof for the use and benefit of White and Thompson. It may be well to say right here that, while there was testimony tending to show that the persons named were in collusion to wrong the defendant in the execution and discounting of these and other notes, there was no testimony whatsoever discrediting the claim and statement of plaintiff's witness and cashier that for it, in the regular course of business, before maturity and for value, he had purchased and discounted three notes, on one of which the pie company was an indorser, and of two the maker, payable to Thompson's order, and indorsed by him; and that the notes in suit were executed and delivered to the bank when the notes first mentioned matured in lieu or renewal thereof, all of said paper being discounted, purchased, and taken in the belief that defendant, Ludlum, was the pie company. This case seems to have been tried upon the belief that the evidence produced would clearly establish that defendant was in reality the pie company when all of the notes were made or indorsed; that White was the manager of that business or concern, and that as such manager he was authorized and empowered to execute or indorse the notes in the course of its business transactions. While, on the trial, some reference was made to testimony, which it was claimed tended to show that defendant had by his conduct, and as to the notes sued upon, estopped himself from denying that he was the pie company, we shall make no special mention of this feature of the case, because we are unable to see that by this testimony the essential elements of an estoppel were shown to have existed. That White was the manager of the business carried on by the pie company, and that he was authorized to execute and discount its negotiable paper, was clearly shown upon the trial; and, as there was no real dispute over plaintiff's rights as a bona fide purchaser of negotiable promissory notes, the storm center, so to speak, on the trial of the case gathered about plaintiff's claim that defendant, Ludlum, was the pie company in fact, and therefore the real maker of the notes in question. All other issues or questions became subsidiary to this. The plaintiff undertook to establish its contention by the direct testimony of White, by evidence of statements or admissions alleged to have been made by defendant both before and after the execution and indorsement of the notes, and by spreading before the jury a number of facts and circumstances, all of which it was claimed went to establish plaintiff's position. This proof was met by denials and explanations, a wide range of examination being allowed; but a verdict for plaintiff resulted. The refusal of the court below to grant defendant's motion for a new trial is assailed with 25 assignments of error, many of them repetitions in effect, and, unfortunately for this court, not grouped or put together in the argument, so as to be easily comprehended or disposed of. The most of these assignments are directed to the rulings made by the trial court on the admission of testimony, which, it was claimed, had a tendency to show that Ludlum transacted business pertaining to the...