72 W. Va. 29 | W. Va. | 1913
This appeal is by the First Citizens Bank of Cameron, City Bank of Wheeling, and the Merchants & Manufacturers National Bank of Columbus, Ohio, from a decree rendered on the 22nd of January, 1910, by the circuit court of Marion county, in four several suits brought by them, respectively, against W. J. Bryan and others, for the purpose of collecting a number of notes held by them as indorsees, aggregating $99,000. The several suits were consolidated and heard together. Two of them are by the First Citizens Bank, some of the notes held by it not being due at the time it brought its first suit; and one suit each by the other two banks. All of them are attachment suits in equity attacking a conveyance made by W. J. Bryan to his daughter, Mrs. Lizzie B. Loller, on the alleged ground that it was made to hinder, delay, and defraud plaintiffs in the collection of their debt. Mr. Bryan’s non-residency is also averred. The suits were brought in the latter part of 1903 and early part of January 1904. During their pendency W. J. Bryan died, and they were revived against his administrator.
W. J. Bryan was the owner in fee of 474 acres of valuable coal land in Marion county, West Virginia, which was being operated for coal, under a lease from him to the Fairmont Coal Company. That company was garnished as his debtor; and it appears from its answer filed in the suits that the royalties accruing to Bryan on account of coal being mined amounted to $2,000, or more, per month.
As to one note for $6,000 sued on by the First Citizens Bank on which there is a balance of $1,000, exclusive of interest, there is no controversy. The court gave a decree for this balance and its interest, but dismissed the suit as to the other notes sued on; and also ' dismissed the suits of the other two banks. All the notes, excepting the $6,000 note, and the $3,000 note held by the First Citizens Bank, were executed by S. W. Loller
“To subscribe for or purchase in my name shares of the Capital stock of any company or companies, formed ox to be formed, and to pay for said shares of stock in cash or by promissory note or notes payable at such time and in such manner as my said attorney shall in his absolute discretion determine.” One who deals with an agent is bound to take notice of the extent of his authority. There is no question, however, that Loller was empowered to execute promissory notes for Mr. Bryan, for the purpose of buying stock in corporations then existing, or thereafter to be formed; and it is clearly established by the proof that all the notes' in question, except one for $3,000, held by the First Citizens Bank, were executed in consideration for stock purchased for Bryan in certain corporations. $50,000' in notes were executed on the 10th of June, 1903, payable to the Loller Manufacturing Company, for stock in that company. It had been chartered by the secretary of state of West Virginia,, six days before.
Notes aggregating $47,000 were executed on July 16, 1903,. payable to S. A. Englehard for stock in the American Manufacturing Company, a then existing corporation.
One other note for $3,000, held by the First Citizens Bank belongs to a class of notes aggregating $90,000 which were executed on the 10th of August, 1903, by W. J. Bryan in person. The $3,000 note was payable to S. A. Englehard; the others were payable to Benedum and Fox, and were executed for the-purchase of stock held by A. E. Fox, E. C. Fox, his brother, and.
Following is a brief history -of the transactions leading up to the execution of the notes. One. E. K. Aseher had invented a tank and valve for use in water closets to be operated under low water pressure; and had applied for a patent. In January, 1903, a plumbing company, the F'ox Tank and Yalve Company, was chartered for the purpose of exploiting this device; and W. J. Bryan was induced to take $12,000 of stock in it. The $1,000, not controverted, is the balance of that subscription. At the time that subscription was made the Fox Tank and Yalve Company owned nothing but the right to the invention, which Aseher had assigned to it. The patent was later issued to said company. W. J. Bryan was the president of that company. Later, the Loller Manufacturing Company was. chartered for the purpose of taking over the stock and business of the Fox Tank and Yalve Company, and enlarging the business of manufacturing and selling the device. S. W. Loller was made president, and A. E. Fox, treasurer, of that company.
The $47,000 of notes were executed in consideration of stock in the American Manufacturing Company. It owned a plant, located at Middleport, Ohio, and had been engaged in manufacturing plumbing fixtures. S. A. Englehard owned and controlled nearly all the stock of that company. It appears that the American Manufacturing Company was then insolvent; it owed debts amounting to $56,000, and its plant was sold some time after, under decree of court, and brought about $17,000.
On the 15th of July, 1903, A. E. Fox andiM. L. Benedum met S. A. Englehard at Pomeroy, Ohio, and took from him an option on the property and stock of the American Manufacturing Company, at $96,000, out of which the debts, estimated not to exceed $56,000, were to be paid. They agreed to pay cash, or to execute satisfactory notes for the remaining $40,000, in the event the option was closed. On the day following, A. E. Fox and M. L. Benedum went to Middleport, Ohio, and met 3. W. Loller who had gone there before them to look over the plant. Notwithstanding they then held an option to buy the property at $96,000 they made Loller believe that it was worth $150,000, and combined and conspired with Englehard in
The First Citizens Bank holds seven notes aggregating $26,000, as to all of which Mr. Bryan denied liability, except the balance due on the $6,000 note, for which, together with accrued interest, a déeree was given. Four of the contested notes are for $5,000 each, and bear date June 10, 1903, and are payable at the Merchants & Manufacturers National Bank, to the order of the Loller Manufacturing Company; one note for $2,000, dated July 16, 1903, payable at the Middleport Bank to the order of S. A. Englehard, all signed by "W. J. Bryan by S. W. Loller attorney in fact; and one for $3,000, dated August 10, 1903, payable at the First Citizens Bank to the order of S. A. Englehard, and signed by W. J. Bryan in person.
Two principal defenses are made to all those notes, viz.: (1) That S. W. Loller was not authorized to execute them; and (2) that the notes were procured to be executed by fraud, and that the banks had constructive knowledge of it at the time they
It is urged that Loller had not power to execute negotiable notes. But to so interpret the power of attorney would be to give a restricted meaning to the word “promissory,” not warranted by anything contained in the writing, and clearly not warranted in law. A promissory note may, or may not be negotiable, but a negotiable note is necessarily a promissory note; and the same note might be negotiable in one state and not technically negotiable in another. Its quality as commercial paper would depend upon the law of the place of payment. The word “promissory”, as applied to notes, is used in a generic sense, while the word “negotiable” simply defines a particular class of that genera. The greater term necessarily includes the less. The power authorized Loller to execute “promissory note or notes payable at such time and in such manner as my said attorney shall in his absolute discretion determine.” This language is comprehensive enough to give him power to execute any kind of a promissory note and make it payable anywhere. All the notes in question were either dated at McCracken, Pennsylvania, or at Middleport, Ohio, and most of them were payable in the latter state; so that, as to their negotiability, most of them are governed by the laws of Ohio. . 4 Min. Inst. 614.
Are the several plaintiffs innocent holders? That they purchased the notes before maturity and paid value for them, is clearly proven. But were they ignorant of the fraud perpetrated on Mr. Bryan by M. L. Benedum, A. E. Fox and Englehard in
First, as to the notes held by the First Citizens Bank: Four of them, aggregating $20,000, are a part of the $50,000 of notes that were made on the 10th of June, payable to the order of the Loller Manufacturing Company. They were indorsed by that company by A. E. Fox treasurer, and were taken by him to the Bank of Wheeling for discount. That bank would not discount them until indorsed by the First Citizens Bank, which was done; and the funds were placed to the credit of the Loller Manufacturing Company in the First Citizens Bank, and were later checked out by A. E. Fox as treasurer of the said company. The notes being payable at the Merchants & Manufacturers National Bank were forwarded to it for collection, and, not being paid, were protested. They were then taken up by the First Citizens Bank.
M. L.” Benedum and A. E. Fox were president and cashier, respectively, of the First Citizens Bank; and it is insisted that, because of their official relation to the bank, it is affected with constructive knowledge of their participation in the fraudulent procurement of the notes, and is, therefore, not an innocent holder. The officers and directors of a bank are its agents, and, as a general rule, knowledge acquired by an agent in respect to matters pertaining to the agency is attributable to his principal. But there is an exception to this rule in respect to an officer or member of a board of directors of a corporation, who has acquired knowledge outside of his official duties, which it is to his personal interest to conceal from his corporation. When such is the case, his knowledge will not be ascribed to the corporation of which he is an officer. This exception is especially applicable in the case of an officer of a bank, who has a personal interest to be served in having paper discounted by it. This point was decided by this Court in Bank v. Lowther-Kaufman Oil & Coal Co., 66 W. Va. 505, in which we held that: “Notice to one of the directors of a matter affecting the interest of the bank which it is to the interest of such director to conceal is not notice to the bank.” The same principle was again announced in the more recent case of Bank of Bluefield v. Ritz, 70 W. Va. 409. We deem it unnecesary to repeat the reason for the rule, but
It is urged that the First Citizens Bank did not negotiate the notes to the Bank of Wheeling, but that it only indorsed them for accommodation; that it had no power to make such indorsement and is not bound thereby; and that it purchased the notes after they became due, and is therefore not entitled to claim protection against the equities in favor of the maker. But the transaction between the two banks was treated as one of sale and purchase; the Bank of Wheeling .turned the funds over to the First Citizens Bank, and it placed them to the credit of the Loller Manufacturing Company. It was evidently regarded by the two banks as a re-discounting of the paper; and being so considered by them, the maker of the notes has no right to complain; it was a matter between the banks. Our conclusion is that tire First Citizens Bank is not affected with notice of the infirmity of the four $5,000 notes. The same argument applies in support of the bank’s title to the $2,000 note. It was one of the class of $47,000 notes, dated July 16, 1903, and was discounted by the Merchants & Manufacturers National Bank after having been indorsed first by Englehard, the payee, and then by the First Citizens Bank. After being protested, it was taken over by the First Citizens Bank.
The other note for $3,000 was discounted by the First Citizens Bank for Englehard, the payee. For the reason above given the bank is not affected with notice of its infirmity. It is one of the class of $90,000, and the only one of that class involved in these suits. Those notes were made by Mr. Bryan in person at the solicitation of Mr. Englehard, and weTe given for the purchase of Benedum and Fox’s interest in the American Manufacturing Company. Some of those notes were signed in blank. by Mr. Bryan and were filled out afterwards by Englehard. Benedum and Fox agreed to give Englehard $8,000 for selling
As to the suit by the Merchants & Manufacturers National Bank: We have-already mentioned the circumstances under which the $43,000 of notes held by this bank were executed. They are of the class of $47,000 which were executed by Bryan, by his attorney in fact, for the purchase of Englehard’s stock in the American Manufacturing Company at Middleport. They were all made payable to the order of Englehard at the Middle-port Bank. They were negotiable notes executed in consideration of stock in a corporation; and we have said that Loller had power to execute commercial notes for such a purpose. But these are what are known as judgment notes; that is, they contained a provision authorizing any attorney-at-law to appear for Bryan, in any action on the notes, in any court of record in the State of Ohio, and to waive issuance and service of process, and to confess judgment in favor of the holder. It is insisted that this provision, inserted in the notes, was in excess of authority, and that it avoids the notes. It is clearly without authority, and renders the provision in question void. But does it affect the promise to pay the note itself? We think not. It does not follow that, because some provision in a written instrument is void, the whole is thereby rendered nugatory. The power to confess judgment, which Loller attempted to confer, was not to be exercised unless the note was not paid at maturity. It has nothing to do with the consideration or the promise to pay. It relates wholly to the collection of the notes, to the remedy; and may be regarded as harmless surplusage. The legal proposition here presented was decided in Robinson v. Lowe, 50 W.
The notes in question are not rendered void by the provision authorizing any attorney-at-law to confess judgment on them. The unauthorized provision only is void.
At the time these notes were negotiated to the Merchants & Manufacturers National Bank, certificates of deposit, bearing three per cent interest, were given to Benedum and Fox, respectively, amounting in the aggregate to $40,000, payable when the notes themselves became due. The notes bore six per cent interest. It is argued that this transaction indicates a suspicion on the part of the bank that the notes were defective. We do not think so. Benedum and Fox represented to it that the transaction with Englehard was a cash one, and that they could use the certificates of deposit as cash; and the bank saw a chance to make three per cent .in a legitimate manner. But even admitting that the bank was suspicious of the notes, mere suspicion is not enough; the bank is, nevertheless, to be considered a bona fide. holder, in the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of any defect in the notes. Bank v. Ohio Valley Furniture Co., 57 W. Va. 625. The certificates of deposit were negotiable, 2 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, sec. 1703, and authorities cited in note, and had been indorsed by Fox and Benedum, respectively, to innocent holders. The bank was, therefore, in the same situation as if it had paid the cash. It was bound to redeem its certificates.
Granting that the rule of law is, that proof of such facts by
It appears that there were two papers executed by Mr. Bryan giving power of attorney to his son-in-law, designated in the record and in briefs of counsel as No. 1 and No. 2; and that the second one, although bearing the same date as the first, to-wit, 5th March, 1903, and purporting to be acknowledged before a justice of the peace in Pennsylvania on the same date, yet which was, in fact, signed and acknowledged sometime in June, 1903. Loller claims to have had no knowledge of this second paper, and Mr. Bryan swears that A. E. Fox induced him to give' it, by fraudulent representations. There is conflict between Fox and Loller, as to whether the latter actually knew of it or not. But we do not regard it material whether he knew it or not: Because he evidently executed the notes thinking he had power to do so, and the power having been given before the notes were
■ The chancellor denied relief to the City Bank of Wheeling, not because of any knowledge, actual or constructive, of fraud in the making of the notes, but on the ground that Loller was not authorized to execute notes for any other purpose than in payment for shares of stock in corporations, and that the notes held by this bank were not executed for that purpose. He also held that, if the bank had been diligent to inquire, it could have ascertained that the notes were executed simply to be placed upon the market and sold. But we do not think this view is sustained by the record. We think the proof fully establishes the fact that the $30,000 of notes held by this bank were given in consideration for stock in the Loller Manufacturing Company. They are a part of the $50,000- of notes executed 10th June, 1903, payable to the order of that company. Upon their execution Bryan became entitled to the stock, and the company to the notes; neither was it restricted in the use which it could makef of them. It had a right to sell them. They were negotiated to the City Bank after being indorsed by the payee and by the First Citizens Bank. 'And the City Bank is as much an innocent holder of these notes as either of the other two banks are of the notes which they hold. The same reasons for holding the First Citizens Bank to be an innocent holder of the $20,000 notes applies to sustain the title of the City Bank to the $30,000 of notes. They are notes of the same class.
It is suggested that Fox, as Treasurer of the Loller Manufacturing Company, was not shown to have authority to- negotiate the notes, but that is a question between that company and the holder of the notes, and it is not complaining. It was'made a party defendant in both the suit by the City Bank, and in the suit by the First Citizens Bank, and it failed to answer either bill. Both bills allege that, before the notes were due and
It is insisted that there is a fatal variance between the description given in the bill filed by the First 'Citizens Bank, as to two of the notes sued on, and the notes offered in evidence. The bill describes the $2,000 note as being payable at the Middleport National Bank, whereas the note offered in proof shows that it is payable at the “Middleport Bank.” The note for $3,000 is described as having been signed “by W. J. Bryan by S. W. Loller his attorney in fact,” whereas the note offered in proof appears to be signed by W. J. Bryan in person. The bill purports to exhibit these notes along with it, but as a matter of fact they appear to have been filed with depositions. It is a well established principle, both in courts of law and in courts of equity, that the allegata and probata must correspond. 13 Enc. Va. & W. Va. 478, and numerous cases cited. If the variance is so material as to make the case proven wholly different from the one alleged in the pleadings, relief can not be given. Campbell v. Bowles, 13 Grat. 652; Grigsby v. Weaver, 5 Leigh 197; Doonan v. Glynn, 26 W. Va. 225; Bier v. Smith, 25 W. Va. 830. The variance in this instance is not so great, however, as to show that the cause proven is wholly different from the cause alleged, and it is unnecessary to decide whether the variance is so material as to require an amendment of the pleadings to cure it, if application therefor had been made at the proper time, because of another rule of' practice which we think should be applied in this case. That is, if advantage of a variance between the proof and the pleadings'is not taken in some manner in the court below, and that court’s attention is not called to the question, it can not be raised for the
W. J. Bryan and wife conveyed to his daughter, Lizzie B. Lol-ler, wife of-S. W. Loller, 474 acres of coal land in Marion county, West Virginia, for a cash consideration, recited in the deed, of '$20,000. The bills attack that deed on the ground that it. was made with intent to hinder, delay and defraud plaintiffs,, and the other creditors of W. J. Bryan, in the collection of their-debts. W. J. Bryan in his answer, denies the fraud, but Mrs. Loller makes no -answer to the bill. The deed bears date Aprili 3, 1903, and the certificate of acknowledgment of D. H. Brewer, a justice of the peace in Pennsylvania, purports to have been made on the same date. But it is proven by Thomas B. Anderson, who’was present when the justice drew up the deed and certified the acknowledgment, that the deed was written, signed and acknowledged on the 12th of October, 1903. Mr. Btyan admits-it. It is also proven by Mr. Jacobs, clerk of the county court of Marion County, that the date in the certificate of acknowledgment had been changed before the deed was presented for record-ation ; that the abbreviation “Apr.” had been changed to “Oct.”, ■and the figure 3 was written over the figures “1 and 2.” Mr. Anderson remained at -Mr. Bryan’s house the night following the-evening the deed was executed, and he testifies that, after the deed had been signed and acknowledged, it was left lying on the table, and he did not know what became of it that night; that on the next morning it was delivered to him by Mrs. Loller to be carried to Fairmont, West Virginia, for recordation; and that he was not aware that any change had been made in the date of the certificate. 'There was certainly opportunity for someone at. Mr. Bryan’s house to have made the change that night. Mr. Bryan testifies that the deed was made pursuant to a written-contract of sale between himself and daughter, made on the 3rd of April, 1903, and that the deed was drawn up to conform to>
Reversed and Remanded.