| Iowa | Feb 10, 1892
Of the notes in suit, one is for seven hundred dollars, given on the fifteenth day of February, 1887; one is for one thousand, six hundred and seventy-four dollars and twenty-two cents, given on the thirtieth day of August, 1888; one is for two thousand dollars, given on the twenty-ninth day of October, 1888; and the fourth one is for four hundred and seventy-five dollars, given on the eighteenth day of April, 1889. All of these notes were made by the defendant, W. F. Walker, to the plaintiff. The first and third of the notes, in the order described, were secured by a mortgage on land; the second was secured by a chattel mortgage; and the fourth appears to have been unsecured;
' I. It appears that for a period of time commencing in August, 1886, and ending in 1889, the appellant was engaged in buying and selling livestock, and that the hanking part of the business was transacted with the plaintiff. The appellant resided at Watkins, and the plaintiff was doing business at Blairstown. It sometimes happened that Walker needed more money than he had on deposit, and at such times, in order to avoid overdrafts, it was the custom to make a note for the amount needed. If Walker was present he attached his own signature to the note; hut if the money was sent to him by a messenger or by express, what is termed a “memorandum note” was drawn by an officer of the bank to which Walker’s name was attached as done by the person who wrote it. No credit was given to Walker for these notes nor was he charged with the money paid on them; but, when he had a balance to his credit sufficient for the purpose the notes were charged to him. He alleges in his answers that he has been charged with ten notes, aggregating five thousand, one hundred and fifty-five dollars and fifty cents, and claimed to be of that character, for which he never received any money or óther consideration; but, as we understand his argument, he now claims only that there were six of such .notes, amounting to two thousand, eight hundred and two dollars, for which he has never had a consideration. He claims that he kept no account of his transactions with the plaintiff, and that he relied upon the accounts kept by the latter, and supposed them to be correct when he gave the notes in suit. The officers of the bank testify that its books are correct. While thei-e is some conflict in the evidence, the preponderance shows the following facts: The note for one thousand^ six hundred and seventy-four dollars and seventy-two cents, dated August 30, 1888, was given to settle a balance then supposed to be due to the plaintiff from Walker. Before that time the plaintiff had sent to Walker statements of account in the nature of transcripts from its ledger, accompanied by the notes he now questions, which were marked “Paid,” showing that he had been charged with them. He made no objections to the statements and notes, although they showed clearly with what he was charged. The appellant claims that he was not familiar with book-keeping, and did not understand the statements; but we .are satisfied that a reasonable amount of care would have apprised him fully of the state of his account. He-knew when he received the notes whether he had received the money which they represented, and, if there was any error, he should have made it known when he received the statements.
The officers of the plaintiff do not remember all the persons to whom the proceeds of the notes were paid, and it is insisted that the burden is
II. The appellant has filed a motion asking that the cost of the additional abstracts filed by the appellee be taxed to it. Some of the matter contained in these abstracts was material to a full understanding of the ease. They may have been unnecessarily full, but the amount of costs-which could be taxed to the appellee on that account would be little more than nominal, and the motion will, therefore, be overruled. The-judgment of the district court is affirmed.