Parsons v. Utica Cement Mfg. Co.

Citation80 Conn. 58,66 A. 1024
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date07 June 1907
PartiesPARSONS v. UTICA CEMENT MFG. CO.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Hannah G. Parsons against the Utica Cement Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff appeals from an order setting aside a verdict for her, and defendant brings exceptions from instructions given. No error. Defendant's exceptions sustained in part.

Action on two bonds, for $1,000 each. A verdict for the plaintiff was set aside by the court as against the evidence, and the plaintiff appealed. The defendant filed a bill of exceptions to certain of the instructions given to the jury. The coupons were of the following form: "Hartford, Conn., January 1, 1885. $30.00. On the first day of July, A. D. 1888, we promise to pay to the bearer thiry dollars at the Charter Oak National Bank of Hartford, Conn., for value received, being for interest due on that day on bond No. 41, dated January 1, A. D. 1885. Utica Cement Manufacturing Company, by J. S. Parsons, Treas."

Henry T. Richardson, for appellant. John H. Buck, for appellee.

BALDWIN, C. J. This is a suit brought in 1906 on two negotiable coupon bonds for $1,000 each, issued by the defendant in 1885 and payable in 1890, to recover on each the principal and also the interest for two years, as evidenced by the four coupons which were the last to mature. Both bonds and coupons were payable to bearer. The answer avers that the bonds in 1887 were owned by the Continental Life Insurance Company, and were then fraudulently taken from its possession by the plaintiff's husband, who was its president, without any consideration moving to the company, and came into her possession with notice of that fact, without any consideration moving from her, and that she was never a bona fide holder. These allegations were denied by the reply.

The bonds were negotiable instruments. Gen. St. 1902, § 4171. The plaintiff, as the holder, was to be deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course, but under the statute, when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated such an instrument was defective, 'the burden is on the holder to prove that he, or some person under whom he claims, acquired the title as a holder in due course." Gen. St. 1902, § 4229. This provision abrogates so far forth the general rule of pleading that it is for him who pleads facts to prove them. Johnson County v. Walker, 79 Conn. 349, 65 Atl. 132. That the plaintiff got these bonds from her husband, and that he got them fraudulently and without consideration from their owner, was undisputed. It had, therefore, been shown that she received them from one having a defective title, and so by law the burden fell on her to prove that she was a holder in due course. To sustain this burden, it was necessary for her to show that she took the bonds in good faith and for value, and without notice of any defect in her husband's title. Gen. St. 1902, § 4222. It follows that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, as it did in substance, that, as the plaintiff had possession of the bonds, the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that she was not a bona fide holder, and that to do this it must satisfy them by a fair preponderance of evidence that she acquired the bonds either without paying any value, or knowing that her husband had taken them from the insurance company improperly and fraudulently. It being undisputed that her husband's title was defective, the burden was upon her to show value paid or want of notice of the defect, and not on the defendant to show no value paid or the existence of notice. The first exception of the defendant to the charge is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Glendo State Bank v. Abbott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ......479;. Foster v. McKinnon, L. R. 4 C. P. 704; Western. Mfg. Co. v. Cotton & Long, (Ky.) 104 S.W. 758;. Whipple v. Brown, (N. Y.) 121 ...Realty Corp. v. Bank (Ky.) 198 S.W. 546; Builder's Lime & Cement. Co. v. Weimer, (Ia.) 151 N.W. 100; Devey & Kuhn Co. v. Huttig, (Ia.) ...Blyth & Fargo Co., 23 Wyo. 52; 146 P. 603; McNight v. Parsons, 136 Iowa 390, 113 N.W. 858,. and note thereto as reported in 22 L.R.A. ...218; Hodge v. Smith, 130 Wis. 326;. 110 N.W. 192; Parsons v. Utica Cement Mfg. Co., 80. Conn. 58; 66 A. 1024; Winter v. Nobs, 19 Idaho 18;. ......
  • Hill v. Dillon
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 11, 1913
    ...N.C. 590, 62 S.E. 738; Cook v. Co., 28 R.I. 41, 65 A. 641; Louis DeJonge & Co. v. Woodport & Co., 77 N.J.L. 233, 72 A. 439; Parsons v. Co., 80 Conn. 58, 66 A. 1024; Stouffer v. Alford, 114 Md. 110, 78 A. Wilson v. Kelso, 115 Md. 162, 80 A. 895; Second Natl. Bank v. Hoffman, 229 Pa. 429, 78 ......
  • Hill v. Dillon
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 11, 1913
    ...I. 41, 65 Atl. 641, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 193; Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Woodport, etc., Co., 77 N. J. Law, 233, 72 Atl. 439; Parsons v. Company, 80 Conn. 58, 66 Atl. 1024; Stouffer v. Alford, 114 Md. 110, 78 Atl. 387; Wilson v. Kelso, 115 Md. 162, 80 Atl. 895; Second Natl. Bank v. Hoffman, 229 ......
  • Sample v. Hundred Lakes Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 4, 1933
    ...... is for him who pleads facts to prove them. Parsons v. Utica Cement Mfg. Co., 80 Conn. 58, 60, 66 A. 1024. . . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT