Nelson v. Flint

• Decision Date: 22 March 1897
• Docket Number: No. 196,196
• Citation: 166 U.S. 276,41 L.Ed. 1002,17 S.Ct. 576
• Parties: NELSON et al. v. FLINT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

166 U.S. 276

17 S.Ct. 576

41 L.Ed. 1002

NELSON et al.

v FLINT.

No. 196.

March 22, 1897.

On June 3, 1892, the defendant in error commenced suit in the district court of the Fourth judicial district of the territory of Utah for the county of Weber upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:

'$6,700. Salt Lake City, Utah, April 3, 1891.

'On or before the 23rd day of April, 1892, without grace, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Richard Flint sixty-seven hundred dollars, negotiable and payable at Ogden, Utah, without defalcation or discount, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from date until paid, both before and after judgment.

'Interest payable semiannually.

'Alfred H. Nelson.

'Frank J. Cannon.

'A. H. Cannon.'

The original answer denied that plaintiff was the owner or holder of the note, and alleged generally that it was made without consideration, and that plaintiff wrongfully obtained possession thereof. Subsequently an amendment was filed which stated that the plaintiff had been since about June 19, 1889, the holder and owner of two promissory notes signed by the defendants Nelson and Frank J. Cannon, amounting to $6,700; that he offered to surrender those notes and waive all claim for interest if the makers of those notes would furnish him a new note signed by them and their co-defendant in this case, A. H. Cannon; that in reliance upon such agreement the note sued upon was signed, and the plaintiff obtained possession of it upon a promise to return the old notes, which he had failed to do. This amended answer was met by, in substance, a general denial. Upon a trial before the court and a jury a verdict and judgment were returned and entered in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of the note and interest. This judgment was thereafter affirmed by the supreme court of the territory, to reverse which latter judgment of affirmance a writ of error was sued out from this court.

A. R. Heywood, for plaintiffs in error.

Pliny B. Smith, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

On the fact of the paper the right of the plaintiff to recover is clear. The record does not contain the entire testimony offered on the trial. It cannot, therefore, be said, even if this court were at liberty to examine the testimony, that it was not amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

It is alleged that the trial court erred in ruling out evidence of a conversation between Frank J. Cannon and A. H. Cannon in the absence of the plaintiff,—a conversation which it was claimed induced A. H. Cannon to sign the note. The mere statement of the proposition carries its own answer. Conversations between two makers of a note in the absence of the payee are clearly not binding upon the latter. No representations, true or false, made by one maker of a note to another, no secret understanding between such markers, no inducements offered by one to the other, affect the validity of the instrument in the hands of the payee, unless he knew, or was chargeable with notice of, such facts. The vital question is not what passed between the makers by themselves, but what passed between the payee and any one of the makers.

It is also alleged that there was error in refusing to permit evidence as to certain collateral security, which it is claimed should have been exhausted...