*1 TERM, 1922. & Bank Farmers Merchants Siemers. assignment
clear that merit. this of error is without testify witness information allowed to acquired professional by him from Mrs. Carson'in his capacity purpose physician, treating as her objections her or in connection with such treatment; being questions sustained all character. this testimony of the witness which was admitted was not in- competent being a disclosure of confidential communi- by patient physician. a made to her [See cations Hamil- ton v. Crowe, 634, 75 S. W.
Beyond recovery allowing a for the second item of perceive prejudicial account, we error the case. If, therefore, remit amount second days item of the account, to-wit, $165, within ten delivery opinion, judgment the date of the of this bewill and the reversed cause remanded with directions judgment circuit court enter a new $1020, the sum of interest from the date of the original entry judgment; otherwise the will be the cause reversed and remanded for new trial. so ordered. It is Daues, JJ.,
Becker and concur. Appellant, & BANK, FARMERS MERCHANTS v. F. Respondent. H. W. SIEMERS, Appeals. Opinion St. Louis Court of Filed June Limiting 1. BILLS AND NOTES: Written on Words Face Note Before Execution: Part of Contract. Where before execution "Payable Eggimann words were a note the written on face of the before the execution the instru- ment, regarded part must be the contract between the parties limiting payee over Payee’s -: -: Carries Notice of 2. -: Defect Title. 1919, providing Statutes of section Revised In view person infirmity nego- constitute note is whom REPORTS, APPEAL Bank Merchants Farmers & defect, infirmity or knowledge of the have must actual tiated instrument taking his action sueh "Payable faith, held the wordt amounted to bad *2 knowledge imparted actual face of note estate" written on the a right "that payee in his own but belong did note note trustee, hence had he held as pledgee debt, having done so security for individual and as his assignment. under acquired no title thereto Assignment Maturity: Holder -: After Takes of Note -:3. Equities. Subject payee Where held a note trustee and to All pledgee his maturity pledged it to secure 844, Revised course, and under section holder due was not a equities subject all the which took note Statutes had transferer hands whether it was encumbered or not. notice thereof Cape
Appeal Court Common Pleas.— Girardeau Judge. John Snider,
Hon. A.
Affirmed. Spradling appellant. for
A. M. respondent. Cramer, Wilson promissory on a C. This is a suit BRUERE, note by defendant for five hundred dollars, executed dated payable day and one after the 27, 1917, October date A. the. E. order of thereof to note was petition alleged in the to have been endorsed de- and by plaintiff. livered said Feuerhahn The answer admitted the execution of the note but put plaintiff’s pleaded It issue thereto. that the money by note received defendant said borrowed Eggimann, by deceased, him from the estate of by agent loaned and was to him A. E. Feuerhahn the administratrix of A. estate, said said right Feuerhahn or money E. had no interest in said part payable that said made thereof; note, while payable A. the order of E. fact Feuerhahn, was op Eggimann, deceased, the estate of John shows TERM, Farmers & Merchants Bank by by made E. a memorandum A. Feuerbabn face before delivery; that execution and its said was not belonged property of A. E. Feuerhahn, but the estate unlawfully deceased, of John de livered Feuerhahn to said collateral to fifty three secure own hundred dollars knowledge or without the consent of administratrix plaintiff accepted estate; note as with full notice collateral of all the facts, recover not entitled to but thereon, that defend ant the amount owed estate Eggimann, deceased. replication interposed allegations a denial matter. new
A trial of the cause was before the court, jury having been waived, which resulted in a *3 plaintiff appealed. from defendant, has
The are uncontradicted are, substance, as follows: Eggimann
Mrs. Emelia was the administratrix the Eggimann, estate of her deceased husband, John appointed nephew, agent her A. E. as he Feuerhahn, the business of said attend to estate.
On October the defendant 27, 1917, desired to bor by row five dollars informed hundred was Feuer get money Eggimann’s hahn the could John Thereupon by estate. the loan was made as evidenced question. up by the The note was drawn Feuer by hahn and before it executed the maker wrote “ ’ ’ Payable Eggimann thereon the words— to John estate. day long 28th Thereafter, on the of Juune, maturity after the Feuerdiahn, note, without the or consent Mrs. endorsed delivered said note the bank, as collateral for his individual debt to bank. The endorsement on the back thereof is as “A. E. follows: Feuerhahn.” Feuerhahn’s debt to the bank, aforesaid, secured by notes, evidenced executed on two one for four hundred dollars, day 28th the June, other REPORTS, APPEAL lM Bank v. Siemers. & Merchants Farmers prior to that time. executed for three hundred dollars, plain pledging with the note was had business of The trial that he read tiff’s admitted at cashier, who Eggimann “Payable written John words— assigned to on the face of the before it was note, question it. but that he did not Feuerhahn about ask “Payable Appellant the words: contends that Eggimann face on estate,” written part taken as to be are are no instrument but private immaterial. mere memorandum and therefore appellant by the ad- It is further contended agent, her clothed ministratrix estate disposition over the full A. E. with dealing having into with led and that been dealings. protected apparent be owner, such agree. Inasmuch we cannot To these contentions “Payable Eggimann estate” as the words: the execution note before were written face part regarded they must be of the instrument considering parties. in- Thus contract between limiting the author- must be construed strument ity over the Feuerhahn question itself arises whether impart sufficient to thereon memorandum in the of the note at the defect assigned to it Feuerhahn? it
time was provides negotiable “To instrument that: infirmity in the instrument or de notice of an constitute negotiating person the same the the title fect in person negotiated, have must had actual whom is *4 knowledge infirmity knowledge or defect, of the taking the instrument that his action such [Sec. 842, R. S. faith.” to bad amounted question, security disposing as of the note for In guilty Feuerhahn was of a bank, to the debt his own flagrant plaintiff if this knew trust, breach acquired the note. title to no “Payable to John
The words: imparted knowl- note actual of the the face written on MAECH 251 TEEM, y. Farmers & Merchants Bank edge plaintiff belong to the that did not to Feuer- hahn in his own but flight that he held it trustee for the estate of John deceased. The character stamped upon property note as trust its face fully payable as if the note had contained words— E. Eggi- A. Feuerhahn, account of John trustee, mann estate. pledging security held in trust, private primq trustee’s debt was an act un- facie suspicious
authorized itself cir- unlawful, imposing upon duty cumstance, of in- quiry. Plaintiff’s cashier admitted that he read the assigned said before the note was memorandum inquiry concerning he made no it. Plaintiff was bound reading know, memorandum, that, law, dispose Feuerhahn had of the note for own debt. prior assignment, Had informed plaintiff’s cashier that he held note as trustee for pledge he had no estate, it for his efficiency individual debt, Feuer- hahn was not the owner of the could not be serious- ly questioned; gives yet the note itself the same infor- memorandum the note mation. on suffi- knowledge bring home to the cient property not Feuerhahn’s individual that.the note was property trustee but held as for said estate. opinion that Feuerhahn had
We -are of no au security thority for his that the had actual the. Hoyle, [Turner title to the note. Feuerhahn’s v. defect Callaway 51 157; Johnson, Mo. 86 v. Mo. 340, S. W. 95 33; App. Calloway Ry. Levy, 503; Mo. Mo. Co. v. 17 Pac. App. Peoples Savings Miller 21; v. 61 Mo. Cleason, v. App. Schlamp 186 S. 547; W. v. 193 Mo. Bank, App. S. Duncan 114; 190 W. v. Manewal, Brently, v. U. S. 319; Fowler 165; 82 U. S. Jaudon, Lyord, Sigaurney 622; Bartwell & Cresswell (6 Neg. Ed.), 283; Genard, sec. et Inst. al. Darnell *5 210 APPEAL REPORTS, 252 & Merchants Bank
Farmers v. App. 8 McCormick, 261; 130 N. Y. Truettel v. Wurtz, Byles v. Bills Taunt, 100; Notes, & 84. ] since the became holder of Moreover, .the it it is not holder due the note after was overdue, subject to same in its hands the course and note is non-negotiable. it R. [Sec. 844, if S. defenses govern- is therefore controlled case persons ing maturity. notes which came in the of third hands subject note the holder it As such a takes equities incumbered all with transferer notice thereof hands whether he has or not. right having
It been Feuerhahn had no shown note for ac- to quired assignment. [Wheeler no title under the thereto Kellogg 20 Mo. v. 56 Mo. Barret, 575; Schnaake, 138; v. Phillips, Julian v. Mo. Calkins, 529; Ford v. supra; Hoyle, Loewen Mo. v. v. Forsee, Turner 206; Ry. Levy, supra; Pac. Co. v. Miller 712; Mo. 29, 38 S. W. Savings supra.] Peoples Bank, Appellant the doctrine that: “If the true invokes non-negoti- negotiable or of overdue, of a owner with the usual evidences of able clothes another power disposition, ownership, full and third with apparent persons dealing owner, are led with such into dealings.” protected in their will be be invoked this case. doctrine cannot As This Feuerhahn was not stated, has hereinbefore clothed been ownership in note or with with full evidence the usual apparent dispose nor he the it, right. bank was not it in his Plaintiff led own owner concerning dealing note, be- into cause of real note which owner of the would act against preclude disputing, it from good in Feuerhahn to On of a existence ample contrary on its face furnished indicid assign- to make the that F'euerhahn title to claims the note. ment under which TERM, 1922. Beckman Baines. of the lower
In this view case *6 The Commissioner so recom- court must be affirmed. mends. opinion is of Bruere, C.,
PER CURIAM:—-The adopted opinion court. The as the county Cape Pleas the Court of Common JJ., and accordingly P. Girardeau is affirmed. Allen, Daues, JJ., and concur. Becker Respondent, ANNA BECKMAN,
MRS. v. DR. O. C. Appellant. RAINES, Appeals. Opinion St. Louis Court Filed June 1922. Assumption In an INSTRUCTIONS: Trover: of Facts. 1. action instruc- ring pledged, an trover the value of a recover diamond evidence, tion, expressly requiring jury to from the find agreement prerequisite recovery was an plaintiff’s there ring question parties that defendant between should hold named, sum security by plaintiff him payment for the de- erroneous, assuming the debt was the named. fendant sum Valuing Ring Expert Witnesses: Diamond From EVIDENCE. Description: Wrongfully Competency. an In action Withheld: by plaintiff ring pledged value trover recover diamond defendant, wrongful withholding defendant act where produce jewel placed it out value, doubts will resolve all quality its real to show in favor against defendant to the value of diamond by assuming sufficiency proof supply of' highest value,
. quality jewel of the best description its testimony expert as to its value based on of an competent. City
Appeal Louis.— St. from the Court Circuit Judge. Landwehr, Hon. Frank Affirmed.