Jobes v. Wilson

Citation140 Mo. App. 281,124 S.W. 548
PartiesJOBES v. WILSON et al.
Decision Date03 January 1910
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Negotiable Instruments Law 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 250; Ann. St. 1906, § 463-55), § 55, provides that the "title of a person who negotiates an instrument is defective * * * when he obtains the instrument or * * * negotiates it in breach of faith or under such circumstances as amounts to fraud." Section 59 provides that where "it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated an instrument is defective the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course." Held that, where a note for the price of a horse was delivered to the agent of the payee after the greater part thereof was paid, on the agent's representations that he had no authority to indorse such payment, but would have the payee do so, which was not done, the assignee of the note has the burden of showing that he is a bona fide holder in due course.

5. PLEADING (§ 84) — ACTION ON NOTE — SEPARATE ANSWER OF MAKERS.

Where each of several makers of a note delivered to the agent of the payee rely in defense on different statements made to them by the agent when the note was executed, separate answers should be filed by each maker.

6. BILLS AND NOTES (§ 537) — ACTION BY ASSIGNEE — BONA FIDES OF PLAINTIFF — QUESTION FOR JURY.

In an action on a note by the assignee thereof, where it is shown that there was fraud by the payee in obtaining the note, whether plaintiff is a bona fide holder is a question for the jury.

7. BILLS AND NOTES (§ 509) — ACTION BY ASSIGNEE — BONA FIDES OF PLAINTIFF — EVIDENCE.

In an action on a note by the assignee thereof, on the question of plaintiff's bona fides the jury may consider the facts that plaintiff purchased the note without recourse, without knowing the makers, and without inquiring as to their financial condition except statements by the payee, and that he paid but a litle more than one-half of its face value.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; John T. Moore, Judge.

Action by C. S. Jobes against H. M. Wilson and others. Defendants had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Milton Schwind and J. W. Hartley, for appellant. G. A. Watson and G. A. McCafferty, for respondents.

GRAY, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note, dated April 2, 1906, for $1,067, due July 1, 1907, payable to A. J. Ream & Co. at the Bank of Nixa, Mo., and with interest at 6 per cent. per annum before maturity, and 8 per cent. after maturity, payable annually, and signed by the respondents. On the note are the following indorsements: "April 2, 1906, paid $230.00. Without recourse, A. J. Ream & Co." The appellant sued on the note in the Christian county circuit court, and claimed that he bought the same in June, 1906, with two other notes of the same amounts, with the same credits indorsed thereon, and signed by the same parties. The answer of the defendants alleges that the payees, through their agent, a Mr. Guggie, agreed to sell a standard bred stallion for $3,200, to be represented by 16 shares of stock of $200 per share, and if any of the said shares of stock remained unsold, the payees would take the same; that it was further agreed in case said stallion died within one year from the date of delivery, the purchasers should have the option of choosing another horse, or receiving $1,000 of insurance, which the sellers carried on each of their horses in a "blanket" policy; that it was further agreed that the contract should be reduced to writing and delivered to said purchaser; that 10½ shares of said stock were sold by the payees, through said agent, to parties other than these defendants, for which the said agent received for the payees the sum of $2,100; that 1½ shares of said stock were not sold, and were retained by the sellers; that the remaining 4 shares of stock, aggregating $800, were subscribed for by the defendants; that on the 2d day of April, 1906, and after the said Guggie had received the sum of $2,100 for the said payees, and after the said agent had taken over the 1½ shares of stock, amounting to the sum of $300, he falsely and fraudulently represented to the said defendants that it was necessary for them to sign promissory notes for the full amount of the purchase price of said stallion; that the said notes would be sent to A. J. Ream & Co., and that the note sued on in plaintiff's petition would be canceled and returned to defendants; that the second note for a like amount would be canceled and returned to the defendants, and that a credit of $466 would be placed upon the third note; that relying upon the false and fraudulent representations of said agent, they were induced to sign the notes herein referred to. They further alleged that the credits of $2,600 were never placed on said note; that the said two notes were not canceled; that the written contract was never delivered; that the stallion so purchased died within 12 months; and that the payees refused to furnish another or pay the $1,000; and alleging that the said notes were wholly without consideration and void, and specially denying that plaintiff, before maturity of said note, purchased the same in good faith for a valuable consideration. The reply was a general denial.

At the trial the plaintiff, Jobes, testified in his own behalf, to the effect that he bought the notes for about $1,750 to $1,850; that he knew in a general way how the business of the payees was conducted — that is, that a horse would be sold in the neighborhood, and notes given for the purchase price — that he made no effort to ascertain the solvency of the signers, but relied upon his experience as a bank examiner in buying that class of paper, but further stated he had some information from the result of an inquiry one of the payees had made. When he was asked if it did not strike him as a little peculiar, if the payees thought the note was good, to sign it without recourse, he answered: "No; it did not, especially in view of the facts in connection with the business." That he purchased the paper after the partnership between Ream & Co. had dissolved, and each had taken his part of the paper, and that the note was indorsed without recourse, for the reason that the partner who had surrendered his interest to the other would not be liable. The plaintiff resided in Kansas City, Mo., where the payees resided and had been in business. The makers of the paper were farmers in Christian county.

The defendant Wilson testified that Guggie told him that, in the event the horse died, another horse would be furnished, or $1,000 would be paid; that he only agreed to take one-fourth of a share, which would be $50, and that one of the other payees, Mr. Beverage, took one-fourth of a share with him, and Guggie agreed to take their note for $100. But when the sale was put through, Guggie came around with notes for $3,200, and he told him he would not sign them, and he would have to make $100 note, but Guggie said, "You sign these notes, and I will send them on to the office and have a $3,100 credit placed on them," but after he got their signatures, he took the three notes and had them signed by the other parties, and when the horse died, the makers were notified that no horse would be furnished. On cross-examination he testified that Guggie said he could not credit the notes, and that he did not have the power to do that, but he would explain it to Ream, and they would credit the notes. The defendant Brown testified that he took a one-half share, and when he did, he was told by Guggie that the horse was insured for $1,000, and if he died within three breeding seasons, another horse, or $1,000, just as he wished, would be furnished; that when he signed the notes, Guggie told him that when the notes were sent to Kansas City, the company would credit the notes for all that was paid, and that he (Brown) was not standing good for anybody else, because he had certificates showing how much each had. W. A. Boyts, a defendant, testified that, when he made inquiry as to why the parties were asked to sign a $3,200 note, Guggie said he could not credit them, and that the company would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Hill v. Dillon
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 11 Diciembre 1913
    ...he procured said note for value, before maturity, without notice of either of such defenses. Hill v. Dillon, 151 Mo.App. 86; Jones v. Wilson, 140 Mo.App. 281; Stewart & Co. v. Andes, 110 Mo.App. 243; v. Bank, 128 S.W. 829. (4) And after the assignee makes such proof the sufficiency thereof ......
  • Hill v. Dillon
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 11 Diciembre 1913
    ...plaintiff to prove that he acquired the title as holder in due course. This has been previously ruled in this state. Jobes v. Wilson, 140 Mo. App. 281, 292, 124 S. W. 548; Bank v. Hanks, 142 Mo. App. 110, 125 S. W. 221; Johnson County Savings Bank v. Mills, 143 Mo. App. 265, 127 S. W. 425; ......
  • Roberts v. Woodmen Acc. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 6 Marzo 1939
    ... ... defined to the jury. 26 C. J. 1062. (e) The omission of any ... element is fatal. Foster v. Blanchard (Mo. App.), ... 204 S.W. 829, 830; Jobes v. Wilson, 140 Mo.App. 281, ... 124 S.W. 548; Adams v. Barber, 157 Mo.App. 370, 139 ... S.W. 489, 496; Thompson v. Bucholtz, 107 Mo.App ... 121, ... ...
  • Roberts v. Woodmen Accident Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 6 Marzo 1939
    ...to the jury. 26 C.J. 1062. (e) The omission of any element is fatal. Foster v. Blanchard (Mo. App.), 204 S.W. 829, 830; Jobes v. Wilson, 140 Mo. App. 281, 124 S.W. 548; Adams v. Barber, 157 Mo. App. 370, 139 S.W. 489, 496; Thompson v. Bucholtz, 107 Mo. App. 121, 81 S.W. 490, 491. (f) For pl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT