Johnson County Sav. Bank v. Gregg
| Decision Date | 02 October 1911 |
| Citation | 51 Colo. 358,117 P. 1003 |
| Parties | JOHNSON COUNTY SAVINGS BANK v. GREGG. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Boulder County; James E. Garrigues, Judge.
Action by the Johnson County Savings Bank against Charles G. Gregg. Judgment for plaintiff, and plaintiff brings writ of error. Affirmed.
Charles M. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
Richard H. Whiteley, for defendant in error.
On June 15, 1904, at Ward, Colo., the defendant in error made and delivered to the Puritan Manufacturing Company (an Iowa corporation) his written acceptance of a certain order, a copy of which is as follows:
Customer's Acceptance. Accepted,
Chas G. Gregg Customer's Signature.
Puritan Mfg. Company,
Iowa City, Ia., June 15, 1904.
Thirteen months after date Pay to Puritan Mfg. Company of Order Three Hundred and Eighty Dollars, $380.00. Value received and charge to account of
Puritan Mfg. Company.
Per CLV.
To Chas. G. Gregg.
Ward Colo.
About September 6, 1904, it appears this order was by the Puritan Manufacturing Company indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff in error. Upon its nonpayment this action was brought to recover the amount. The answer of the defendant denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the instrument, or that it had been transferred and delivered to the plaintiff in the ordinary course of business, or for a valuable consideration. It further alleged fraud in the securance of the acceptance upon behalf of the Puritan Manufacturing Company, and sets forth that the plaintiff was in reality a collecting agency for the manufacturing company; that it was advised of all facts pertaining to said matter prior to the alleged transfer; that the consideration for said acceptance was certain merchandise received under the warranty of the Puritan Manufacturing Company with a guaranty for a period of five years, with the further agreement that the paper of the defendant should not be negotiated, but would be held so that it could be returned or canceled, as per certain agreements between the parties, and many other defenses not necessary to mention, with the further statement that the defendant had made sales of $20.05 of the goods so purchased, and he offered that judgment might be taken against him for this amount and for the return of the balance of the merchandise remaining unsold. Trial was to the court, which found that the defendant executed the acceptance in question; that the Puritan Manufacturing Company of Iowa City, Iowa, is a fraudulent institution engaged in illegitimate business; that its promoters or proprietors are engaged in fraudulent transactions as a business; that they intentionally deceive the public with their goods; that the name Puritan is a misnomer; that their agent who sold the goods to the defendant for which the acceptance was executed came here for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding him; that the company sent him out for that purpose; that the goods were worthless, of no account whatever; that the whole transaction was based upon an intentional wrong; that it was not only a fraudulent transaction, but the consideration had failed upon which the instrument was based; that the Johnson County Savings Bank, plaintiff in error, was not the holder of said note in due course of business; that the transaction was more in the nature of using the bank as a collecting agency for the purpose of aiding the Puritan Manufacturing Company in the collection of its paper; that the Puritan Manufacturing Company intended to deceive the defendant by selling him false goods, or worthless goods, and taking his note payable at a furture time and to evade the law by appearing to place the note in the hands of an innocent purchaser so the defendant could not set up a defense; that the bank, the plaintiff in error, was willing to lend its assistance to the company; that it did not in fact buy the notes, but took them colorably as a purchaser, but legally in the nature of a collection; that the bank was not a holder in due course of trade. The judgment was against the defendant in the sum of $20.05 and for the return to the plaintiff of the goods unsold. The plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.
The plaintiff in error has assigned 27 alleged errors for our consideration. These may be grouped into three divisions. The first considered pertains to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings and the judgment. Without going into the history and making an analysis of the evidence, we think it sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court. In this respect we find that the Supreme Court of the state of Iowa (the resident state of the plaintiff) and that of other states where this same company has been making similar contentions all appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa City State Bank v. Biggadike
... ... of Iowa City v. Smith, 55 Colo. 516, 136 P ... 460; Johnson ... of Iowa City v. Smith, 55 Colo. 516, 136 P ... 460; Johnson County ... 30, 91 P. 382, and Johnson County ... Savings Bank v. Gregg ... ...
-
Iowa City State Bank v. Biggadike
...of Iowa City v. Smith, 55 Colo. 516, 136 Pac. 460; Johnson County Bank v. Rapp, 47 Wash. 30, 91 Pac. 382; and Johnson County Savings Bank v. Gregg, 51 Colo. 358, 117 Pac. 1003. It follows that the judgment must be ...
-
Atkinson v. Englewood State Bank, 18623
...was adequate the burden then shifted to plaintiff to prove that it was a holder in due course. 95-1-59, supra. Johnson County Savings Bank v. Gregg, 51 Colo. 358, 117 P. 1003. The alleged false representations upon which the defense is predicated are: (1) That the carpet, which defendant co......
-
Knollin v. Western Live Stock Commission Co.
... ... Error ... to District Court, City and County of Denver; Harry C ... Riddle, Judge ... $7,000, which placed it in its Denver bank, and through the ... regular course of exchange it was ... ...