Pryibil v. Altemeyer

• Citation: 153 Mo. App. 237,133 S.W. 103
• Parties: PRYIBIL v. ALTEMEYER
• Decision Date: 30 December 1910
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

133 S.W. 103

153 Mo. A. 237

PRYIBIL v. ALTEMEYER

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 30, 1910.

1. BILLS AND NOTES (§ 511)—OWNERSHIP— EVIDENCE.

Where a negotiable bill was unconditionally accepted by the drawee, in the absence of evidence that a third person was the holder, or had possession or represented the holder, it was error to permit the drawee, in an action against him by the payee on the bill, to testify that he had paid it to the third person, a corporation of which plaintiff was president, for goods sold and delivered to him by the corporation.

2. BILLS AND NOTES (§ 524)—PAYEE—PRIMA FACIE OWNER.

The plaintiff in an action on a negotiable bill, being the payee named in the bill and in possession of it at the trial, is prima facie the owner.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Virgil Rule, Judge.

Action by Oscar Pryibil against Harvey Altemeyer. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Andrew C. Ketring, Campbell Allison, and Frank E. Richey, for appellant. L. P. Crigler and F. B. Coleman, for respondent.

CAULFIELD, J.

This suit originated in a justice court of the city of St. Louis to recover upon two negotiable bills, each for $26.53, drawn by plaintiff upon defendant, dated April 23, 1898, and payable May 10, 1898, and May 20, 1898, respectively, to the order of plaintiff, for value received, and unconditionally accepted by defendant. They bore an indorsement in blank by plaintiff, and one of them had a credit of $5. The trial in the circuit court was before a jury, defendant had judgment, and plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff introduced the bills in evidence. Defendant admitted accepting them, and gave evidence tending to prove that at the time he accepted them he gave them direct to the Royal Cigar Company, a corporation of which plaintiff was president, for goods sold and delivered. Against the objection of plaintiff, the court permitted the defendant to introduce evidence that in 1901 he paid the amount of the bills to the cigar company; but the record before us does not disclose that there was any proof offered that the cigar company was the holder, or had possession of the bills, or represented the holder, at the time of the alleged payment. The admission of said evidence of payment was error. The plaintiff being the payee named in the bills, and in possession of them at the trial, is prima facie their owner. His right to recover cannot be affected by showing payment to...