Shaulis v. Buxton

• Decision Date: 28 January 1902
• Citation: 88 N.W. 968,115 Iowa 425
• Parties: N. P. SHAULIS v. W. E. BUXTON et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

88 N.W. 968

115 Iowa 425

N. P. SHAULIS v. W. E. BUXTON et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 28, 1902

Appeal from Blackhawk District Court.--HON. A. S. BLAIR, Judge.

ACTION at law on a promissory note. Defendants pleaded that the note was given in compromise of a criminal action, and that part of the consideration therefor consisted of an agreement not to prosecute defendant W. E. Buxton for the crime of seduction. Trial to a jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Edwards & Longley for appellants.

Courtright & Arbuckle for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

The note on which the action is predicated was given to Effie Shaulis. Plaintiff claims to be an innocent holder thereof for value and before maturity. This is denied by defendants and they also pleaded illegality of consideration, as before stated. On October 10, 1895, there was pending in the district court of Blawhawk county an action at law wherein Effie Shaulis was plaintiff, and defendant W. E Buxton was defendant, in which plaintiff therein sought to recover damages from defendant for an alleged seduction. At the same time an indictment was pending against said defendant for the crime of seduction. The state was represented in the criminal action by Geo. W. Dawson, county attorney, assisted by E. A. Dawson; and Geo. W. was also plaintiff's attorney in the civil suit. The criminal case came on for trial, and after a jury was impaneled, and statements of the case made, negotiations looking to a settlement were commenced, and the case was postponed until the next day, when the court, after learning of what had been done in the interim, directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. It appears that the aforesaid negotiations resulted in defendant's executing the note in suit, together with an agreement of which the following is a true copy: "For and in consideration of the sum of six hundred dollars to me in hand paid, the receipt whereof is acknowledged, I, Effie Shaulis, the above plaintiff named, do hereby acknowledge full, adequate, and complete satisfaction and payment of the claim made in this action, and discharge and release the said William Buxton from any and all liability upon any and all claims in this action. And in consideration of said sum of money to me paid as aforesaid, I hereby settle and discharge and forever release the said William Buxton and Thomas Buxton from any and all liability, charge, or claim which I have or may hereafter have against them, or either of them, as the putative father of the child with which I am now pregnant, and do hereby release and discharge the said William Buxton from any and all liability to the state of Iowa and county of Blackhawk which may now or hereafter exist against either of them in an action of bastardy or other proceedings arising because of my now being pregnant; and if any action or proceeding is hereafter commenced against either of them because of such child being born, by the state or county, this stipulation shall be a dismissal thereof. Effie Shaulis, Plaintiff."

Defendants contend that the evidence shows without dispute that a part of the consideration for the note in suit was an agreement to compromise and compound the criminal action, and that the court should have sustained their motion for a directed verdict. This contention involves a consideration of two propositions: First. Does the uncontradicted evidence show that, as a part of the consideration for the note, Effie Shaulis, or her agent, agreed to compromise and compound the criminal action? Second. Does it also show that plaintiff was not a good faith purchaser of the note, for value, and before maturity?

Defendants offered evidence to show not only that part of the consideration of the note was an agreement to compound the criminal case, but that this was the sole inducement for the giving of the note. On the other side there was the written agreement to which we have referred, and testimony from plaintiff to the effect that she did not agree to settle the criminal case, and from her father to the same effect....