Land Finance Corp. v. Menzies

• Citation: 160 A. 168,114 Conn. 694
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 26 April 1932
• Parties: LAND FINANCE CORPORATION v. MENZIES.

160 A. 168

114 Conn. 694

LAND FINANCE CORPORATION v. MENZIES.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 26, 1932

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Walter M Pickett, Judge.

Action by the Land Finance Corporation against John Menzies to recover upon three trade acceptances, brought to the court of common pleas and tried to the jury. Verdict for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

No error.

Robert J. Woodruff and Louis Shafer, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Arthur Klein, of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY J.

The appellant in this case assigns error in the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, in refusing to charge as requested, and also in the charge as delivered, and in certain rulings on evidence.

On the trial of this case before the jury, the plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in the business of financing commercial firms through trade acceptances and like negotiable paper, claimed to have established, from the evidence, the following facts: On April 16, 1925, the plaintiff and the Autocrat Sales & Distributing Corporation entered into a written contract, whereby, among other things, the plaintiff agreed to purchase from it trade acceptances by advancing 80 per cent, of the face amount of such acceptances and retaining 20 per cent. Until they were paid in full; thereupon to pay it the balances, less certain charges. Thereafter, and up to June 25, 1925, the plaintiff, in accordance with its contract, purchased from the Autocrat Sales & Distributing Corporation negotiable paper amounting to approximately $60,000. On June 8, 1925, plaintiff purchased twelve trade acceptances from it which were by it indorsed to the plaintiff for value. Among these were three dated May 20, 1925, executed by the defendant John Menzies, as acceptor, and drawn by the Autocrat Sales & Distributing Corporation, requiring the defendant to pay to the order of Autocrat Sales & Distributing Corporation in sixty, ninety, and one hundred and twenty days, respectively, after date, the sum of $229 each at the Second National Bank of New Haven, Conn. July 20, 1925, the first acceptance became payable and was duly presented at the bank for payment, but the defendant refused to pay the same and ordered payment stopped by the bank, and requested it not to pay the other two acceptances when due, claiming that the signature of the defendant on each of the acceptances was a forgery. Thereafter, on their respective due dates, the remaining two acceptances were duly presented at the bank, and, in each instance, payment was refused at the direction of the defendant. The plaintiff was the bona fide holder and owner in due course of the three trade acceptances, which were past due and unpaid at the time of the trial.

The defendant, a plumbing and heating contractor, doing business in New Haven, claimed to have proved, by the evidence, these facts: About May 26, 1925, a man, representing himself to be an agent of the Autocrat Sales & Distributing Corporation of New York, called upon the defendant at his place of business in New Haven, and represented to him that the Autocrat Sales & Distributing Corporation was the manufacturer of a certain oil burner for installation in furnaces, the safest, most efficient, and most economical burner for household' use. He exhibited to the defendant a small model thereof described as a " Kerrihard" burner, and, being advised by the defendant that no oil burner could be installed in New Haven unless approved by the fire marshal and a permit issued therefor, the agent left defendant's office, returning about an hour later on the same day, and stated that the fire marshal had approved the oil burner. Thereupon, the defendant signed a printed contract, wherein he agreed to purchase certain of the burners upon the terms stated in the contract. The defendant specifically denied signing the...