United Finance Plan, Inc. v. Meier

• Decision Date: 07 May 1938
• Docket Number: 33643.
• Citation: United Finance Plan, Inc. v. Meier, 78 P.2d 904, 147 Kan. 688 (Kan. 1938)
• Parties: UNITED FINANCE PLAN, Inc., v. MEIER. [*]
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

78 P.2d 904

147 Kan. 688

UNITED FINANCE PLAN, Inc., v. MEIER. ^[*]

No. 33643.

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 7, 1938

Syllabus by the Court.

In action on a note by an alleged holder in due course, where there was evidence to sustain a finding that execution of note was induced by fraud on payee's part, statute placed on holder burden of proving that it was a holder in due course.Gen.St.1935, 52-509.

In action on a note by an alleged holder in due course, where there was evidence to sustain a finding that execution of note was induced by fraud on payee's part, whether holder was a holder in due course was for jury and trial court.Gen.St.1935, 52-509.

In an action on a promissory note by one who alleged it was the holder in due course, the defense of fraud of payee, which induced its execution, sustained by substantial, competent evidence, placed the burden upon plaintiff to show it was a holder in due course.This normally is a jury question, and was so in this case.In that situation, whether there existed the further defense of a fraudulent conspiracy of the payee plaintiff, and another to procure the note, becomes unimportant.

Appeal from District Court, Cowley County; Stewart S. Bloss, Judge.

Action on a note by the United Finance Plan, Incorporated, against John Meier.From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

J. T Boyle, of Arkansas City, and Charles N. Sadler, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

E. T Bloomer, of Winfield, and O. Renn and George Templar, both of Arkansas City, for appellee.

HARVEY Justice.

This was an action on a promissory note, executed by defendant payable to the order of L. A. Savidge, and by him indorsed, which plaintiff alleged to hold in due course.The answer alleged fraud which induced the execution of the note, and further alleged that the payee, plaintiff, and another engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy, as a result of which the note was executed.A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant.Plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant's principal argument in this court relates to the conspiracy branch of the defense, and it is contended that the evidence is insufficient to establish the conspiracy alleged, and that some of it was improperly received.While we regard these points as not well taken, it is not necessary to state the evidence bearing upon them in detail, or to analyze them with care.There is an abundance of evidence to sustain a finding of fraud on the part of the payee which induced the execution of the note.Appellant does not seriously contend otherwise.In that situation, our statute, G.S.1935, 52-509, placed the burden of proof on plaintiff to show that it was a holder in due course.Beachy v. Jones,108 Kan. 236, 241, 195 P. 184;Solomon Nat. Bank...