Winter v. Hutchins

• Decision Date: 09 December 1911
• Citation: 119 P. 883,20 Idaho 749
• Parties: BERT WINTER, Respondent, v. CHARLES HUTCHINS et al., Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

119 P. 883

20 Idaho 749

BERT WINTER, Respondent, v. CHARLES HUTCHINS et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 9, 1911

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE-WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-QUESTION OF FACT.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Where the issue to be determined is the good faith of the holder of a negotiable promissory note who claims to have purchased the same for a valuable consideration before maturity and without notice of any defense existing between the makers and payee, and the holder of such note testifies that he paid a specified sum for the note, it is competent for him to introduce in corroboration of such testimony the canceled check which he claims to have given in payment for such note.

2. The question as to the good faith of the purchaser of a negotiable promissory note, who claims to have purchased the same in due course before maturity and for a valuable consideration, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury in the light of all the facts and circumstances bearing upon the transaction.

3. Evidence examined and held sufficient to warrant the jury in returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District for the County of Bonner. Hon. Robert N. Dunn, Judge.

Action on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.

E. W Wheelan, for Appellants.

The note is not admissible in evidence without proof of the indorsement when objection is made to the introduction of the instrument by the defendant. (Grogan v. Ruckle, 1 Cal. 158; Youngs v. Bell, 4 Cal. 201; Pinkham &amp McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod, 5 Cal. 137; Poorman v Mills & Co., 35 Cal. 118, 95 Am. Dec. 90.)

One taking a negotiable instrument by assignment takes it subject to all the equities existing between the payee and the maker. (Craig v. Palo Alto Stock Farm, 16 Idaho 701, 102 P. 393.)

The negotiable instrument law changes the rule formerly applied to commercial paper, and when the defendant denies that the holder of the note is a holder in due course, the burden is upon the holder to establish by the testimony that he is a holder in due course. In this regard there is a fatal lack of testimony to establish "that he took it in good faith and for value." (Hodge v. Smith, 130 Wis. 326, 110 N.W. 192; Aukland v. Arnold, 131 Wis. 64, 111 N.W. 212; Swanke v. Herdeman, 138 Wis. 654, 120 N.W. 414; McNight v. Parsons, 136 Iowa 390, 125 Am. St. 265, 113 N.W. 858, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 718, 15 Ann. Cas. 665; Cox v. Cline, 139 Iowa 128, 117 N.W. 48; City Nat. Bank v. Jordan, 139 Iowa 499, 117 N.W. 758; Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Myhre Bros., 57 Wash. 596, 107 P. 518; Union Nat. Bank v. Winsor, 101 Minn. 470, 118 Am. St. 641, 112 N.W. 999, 11 Ann. Cas. 204; Smith v. Lockwood, 80 Wis. 491, 50 N.W. 401.)

Myrvin Davis, for Respondent.

"The question of the good faith of the purchaser of the note was one of fact instead of law, and the jury had the right to determine it in the light of all the facts and circumstances presented in the case." (Winter v. Nobs, 19 Idaho 18, 112 P. 525.)

"The burden was upon the plaintiff in this case to show that it was a holder in good faith, and the question of whether or not that burden was successfully met was one which was submitted to the jury, and, by its verdict, it has decided that question against the appellant." (Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Myhre Bros., 57 Wash. 596, 107 P. 518.)

AILSHIE, J. Stewart, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

This action was prosecuted by the indorsee of a promissory note. The defendants admitted the execution of the note but denied the delivery of the note and alleged fraud in procuring the execution thereof and charged that the plaintiff had notice of these defenses before purchasing the note. A verdict was returned by the jury in favor of the plaintiff and judgment was thereupon entered. Defendant moved for a new trial and appealed from the judgment and an order denying his motion.

The only question arising on this appeal is as to the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence in its entirety to support the verdict. It is first claimed that the evidence is insufficient to show that any consideration was paid by the respondent for this note. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the lower court testified as follows: "I am acquainted with T. D. McLaughlin of McLaughlin Bros. On February 8, 1908, I purchased from them the note of George W. Walker and others, with other notes. Exhibit A is the note I refer to. I paid $ 750 for this note. Exhibit C is my check for $ 750, payable to McLaughlin Bros. and drawn upon the National Bank of Commerce in Minneapolis, Minn., given in payment of the George W. Walker note." The check referred to as Exhibit C is a check drawn by the respondent on the National Bank of Commerce, Minneapolis, in favor of McLaughlin Bros. for $ 750. It is stamped "Paid" in perforated letters. It...