Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Lovitt
| Decision Date | 13 March 1893 |
| Parties | MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK OF KANSAS CITY v. LOVITT. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Defendant executed and delivered a negotiable note to D., in consideration of certain shares of stock in a corporation that was about to be formed. D., who was a vice president of plaintiff bank, requested the president of the bank to discount the note, which was done, and the proceeds were placed to D.'s credit. None of plaintiff's officers but D. had any knowledge of the agreement between D. and defendant constituting the consideration of the note. Held, that plaintiff was not chargeable with D.'s knowledge of this agreement, as D., in procuring plaintiff to discount the note, represented his own personal interest.
2. In such case, the fact that D. designated the rate and figured the amount of the discount on the note will not make him such a representative of plaintiff as to impute to plaintiff his knowledge of the agreement constituting the consideration of the note.
Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; John W. Henry, Judge.
Action by the Merchants' National Bank of Kansas City against Walter U. Lovitt on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Beebe & Watson, for appellant. Gage, Ladd & Small, for respondent.
This is an action on a negotiable promissory note for $2,900, executed by the defendant, Lovitt, and payable to O. P. Dickinson in four months after date, with interest from date at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and by Dickinson indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff bank. The defense set up by Lovitt, the maker of the note, is a failure of consideration. The history of the transaction is this: On the 27th January, 1888, Dickinson, the payee of the note in suit, by an agreement in writing sold to Lovitt 55 shares of stock in a corporation then about to be formed, for which Lovitt gave his note of that date for $2,900, due in six months. It was understood between Lovitt and Dickinson before this note became due that it was to be renewed. On the 11th July, 1888, Lovitt executed the note sued upon, dating it the 27th of that month, and gave it to Dickinson in renewal of the former one, and Dickinson indorsed it to the bank on the same day. Lovitt paid the interest accrued on the original note. For the purposes of the trial only it was agreed "that the note sued upon was given for a contract in which the payee of the note agreed to sell certain shares of stock which then had no existence, and deliver the same when the corporation was formed and stock certificates issued; that the corporation never was formed, and the stock certificates never issued, and that there was a complete failure of consideration of the note; that said Dickinson, the payee of the note, having made the contract set forth in defendant's answer, at all times from and after the making of the same up to the present time knew of its existence and terms." W. B. Clark was president, Mr. McKnight cashier, and Dickinson vice president, of the plaintiff bank when the bank acquired the note sued upon. They were all active officers, and Dickinson was also a director. Dickinson had a conversation with Clark, the president, in which he said he had or expected to get the note of Lovitt. He then asked Clark whether the bank would take it, and Clark agreed to discount the note. The evidence leaves it in doubt whether this conversation occurred after or a day or two before the note in suit was executed, but it clearly appears that Clark, as president, agreed to take the note. The note was executed on the 11th July, and on that day Dickinson indorsed and delivered it to the bank. He at the same time figured up the discount on a deposit slip and handed the slip to the discount clerk or to the cashier, who passed it to the clerk. The discount clerk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. St
...affair, for notice to the cashier transacting the business of the bank is notice to the bank. Bank v. Lovitt, 114 Mo., loc. cit. 525, 21 S. W. 825. Again, if defendant, as it seems to do, adopts Mispagel's act as cashier in handing over those worthless drafts, then once more notice to him a......
-
Smoot v. Judd
...charged with notice acquired by his agent while the agent was engaged in the business of the principal. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Lovitt, 114 Mo. 519, 21 S. W. 825, 35 Am. St. Rep. 770; Traber v. Hicks, 131 Mo. 180, 32 S. W. 1145; Dunham v. Hahn, 127 Mo. 439, 30 S. W. 134. To affect the princ......
-
Varas v. Stewart and Company
... ... Railway Co., 185 Mo. 1, 84 S.W. 26; St. Charles Savings Bank v. Denker, 275 Mo. 607, 205 S.W. 208; Adams v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo. 553 ... Bank v. Lovitt, 114 Mo. 519; Bartlett v. McCallister, 289 S.W. 814; Kimberline v. Tel ... ...
-
American Sash & Door Co. v. Commerce Trust Co., 30410.
...County Natl. Bank, 235 N.Y. 68; Kenneth Investment Co. v. Bank, 96 Mo. App. 142; Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165; Bank v. Lovett, 114 Mo. 519; Trabor v. Hicks, 131 Mo. 192; Merchants Bank of Jefferson City v. Insurance Co., 110 Mo. 62; Lieber v. Bank, 137 Mo. App. 158; Kegan v. Park Bank, 8 S......