Norwegian Plow Co. v. Munger

• Decision Date: 09 December 1893
• Citation: 52 Kan. 371,35 P. 11
• Parties: THE NORWEGIAN PLOW COMPANY v. JNO. J. MUNGER et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

35 P. 11

52 Kan. 371

THE NORWEGIAN PLOW COMPANY v. JNO. J. MUNGER et al

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 9, 1893

Error from Finney District Court.

THIS was an action, on the 20th day of December, 1888, by the Norwegian Plow Company, upon a promissory note, for $ 325 due 30 days after date, executed by John J. Munger and Charles S. Desky to one J. J. Johnson, and by him indorsed to the Norwegian Plow Company. Munger answered, admitting that he signed the paper sued on, with following memorandum or indorsement upon the note: "Accept order on Borders Town Company, and turn note over to J. J. Munger," but denied that there was any consideration for his signing or delivering the same, and set up that the note was given in lieu of an order to be issued by the Borders Town Company and to be delivered in lieu of the note. The trial was had before the court without a jury, and, upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court rendered judgment in favor of Munger and against the plow company, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted by the company.

Judgment affirmed.

H. R Boyd, for plaintiff in error.

HORTON C.J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HORTON, C. J.:

Numerous errors are alleged, but as many of them are trivial and unimportant, we refer to three only.

I. It is insisted that the trial court erred in permitting agency to be shown by the declarations of Mr. Bish, an alleged agent. This was in no wise prejudicial; because, although Mr. Bish was the assistant cashier of the First National Bank, at Garden City, yet he is the party who received the note from Johnson, the payee, in the presence of John J. Munger, with the following memorandum or indorsement attached thereto: "Accept order on Borders Town Company, and turn over note to J. J. Munger." Whether he was agent of the Norwegian Plow Company is immaterial. He acted as such agent, and the company received the note with the memorandum attached; therefore, it accepted the note with full notice of the conditions upon which it was given.

II. It is next insisted, that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence two letters from the Norwegian Plow Company. It appears from the record that Mr. Patton was officially connected with the First National Bank, at Garden City, and that, as an officer of the bank, he had collections to make for the company. He corresponded through the mails with that company, which was located at Dubuque, Iowa, relative to the $ 325 warrant, or order, of the Borders Town Company, referred to in the memorandum. In answer, he received the letters by mail, purporting to come from the company, and dictated by C. W. Mitchell, as the secretary of the company, but written with a typewriter. Under these circumstances, there was a sufficient identification of the letters to permit them to be introduced as prima facie evidence.

III....