Vandeventer v. Traders' Nat. Bank of Kansas City, Mo.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1917
• Citation: 241 F. 584
• Parties: VANDEVENTER et al. v. TRADERS' NAT. BANK OF KANSAS CITY. MO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

241 F. 584

VANDEVENTER et al. v. TRADERS' NAT. BANK OF KANSAS CITY. MO.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 3, 1917

J. E Brooks, of Sedan, Kan. (C. O. Buckles, of Sedan, Kan., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Sanford B. Ladd, of Kansas City, Mo. (Charles E. Small, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

This is an action by the Traders' National Bank of Kansas City upon a promissory note for $5,000 signed by one F. E. Turner and purporting to have been signed by defendants James M Vandeventer and Emmett Vandeventer. The note had been twice renewed with the customary surrender of the matured paper. Shortly after the maturity of the last renewal note, the plaintiff learned that Turner had forged the signature of both defendants to it and to its immediate predecessor, and it therefore brought the action upon the original note. Turner was a grandson of one of the defendants and a nephew of the other. He had charge of a state bank in which they were interested, and personally attended to the transactions with the plaintiff. The defendants denied having executed the original note, the jury found the issue against them, and the plaintiff had judgment.

Defendants' first assignment of error is that the trial court 'erred in the admission of exhibits Nos. 1, 16, and 17 as part of the examination' of a certain witness. Though this assignment does not comply with the rules of this court we have concluded to consider it. Exhibit 1 is a financial or property statement of the same date as the note in suit and purports to have been signed by defendants. It was required by plaintiff as the basis for the loan sought, was addressed to it, and was mailed to it by Turner. At the time it was received in evidence there was no proof that defendants had signed it, and they afterwards denied having done so. Had it been offered at the conclusion of the other evidence in the case, there would, we think, have been enough proof to have justified its admission. The court evidently received it not to show that defendants signed the note but as a part of the transaction, much as it admitted Turner's letter of transmittal. We need not, however, determine the question because the error, if it was one, was not, in our opinion, prejudicial. Aside from it, the proof that defendants signed the note in suit was clear and convincing. Little need be said about exhibits 16 and 17. They were confessions by Turner of various forgeries. One was addressed to defendant J. M. Vandeventer and the other 'To Whom It May Concern.' Both came into the possession of J. M. Vandeventer and were handed to a representative of the plaintiff. There was testimony that J. M. Vandeventer had acknowledged his liability on the note in suit and was about to execute a new one in its place, but that,...