Washington Nat. Bank v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 07 June 1893
• Citation: Washington Nat. Bank v. Pierce, 6 Wash. 491, 33 P. 972 (Wash. 1893)
• Parties: WASHINGTON NAT. BANK v. PIERCE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

33 P. 972

6 Wash. 491

WASHINGTON NAT. BANK v. PIERCE.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 7, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Frank Allyn, Judge.

Action by the Washington National Bank against Eben Pierce on a note. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Stevens Seymour & Sharpstein, for appellant.

Frank D. Nash, for respondent.

DUNBAR C.J.

Defendant made his promissory note, in writing, wherein he promised to pay, to the order of one Cromwell, $1,500, one year after date, with interest at 10 per cent. until paid. Before the note became due, the plaintiff, a bank, purchased the same from Cromwell, at a discount. After demand and refusal to pay, the bank brought this action to collect the note from defendant, appellant herein. The defendant, for answer, alleged fraud on the part of Cromwell in procuring the note, want of consideration, false representations, etc and alleged that, prior to the time said note came into the possession of plaintiff, plaintiff well knew, had full knowledge and due notice, that the said note was obtained by fraud, and was given without consideration, and that the defendant intended to resist the payment of the same. Upon the trial of the cause, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount prayed for.

The view we take of the insufficiency of the notice given to the bank renders unnecessary an examination of the question of want of consideration; for, conceding that the note was fraudulently obtained, we think that the testimony very clearly shows that Ouimette, the president of the bank, did not have such notice as would bind the bank. It is doubtless true that, under certain circumstances, notice to the president of a bank is notice to the bank; but we think that no case can be found where notice given under the circumstances testified to in this case is held binding on the bank. The testimony of appellant concerning this notice was as follows: "We were at the office of the North Pacific Insurance Co., of which company we were both directors and stockholders, and at that time the matter came up, and I told Mr. Ouimette that this note was procured from me by fraud and misrepresentation and right-out lying, and that I would not pay it." But the communication was not made to Ouimette as the president of the bank; it was not made at the bank, or with any reference to the bank's business. The business of...