McDonald v. Stone
86 A.2d 624
D.C.
1952
Check Treatment

*1 permission assignors to made for fused assignment alleged assignment.” “further act as about permitting him purpose to The record does not disclose whether to save assignors, “in order attempted questioning expense to further on direct additional Court costs nec Furthermore be or cross-examination. which would alleged not included in error was the state- to sue the defendant each essary ** assuming ment of filed in errors But separate suit in a appellant’s merely assigned an col was not as error in assignee for that Atwell prevented from brief filed in this Hence we need court. still lection he would In not name. consider it. in his maintaining the suit own 155, Platten, Cir., Overbury v. appellant We must rule failed denied, 311 U.S. 185, certiorari 126 A.L.R. discharge alleging to his burden of and af- 21, 426, L.Ed. where 664, 61 S.Ct. firmatively establishing error. Bahlke v. involved, Learned similar statute Byram, D.C.Mun.App., 78 A.2d 384. See to assignee of an wrote than Hand Greenberg, D.C.Mun.App., James may own name sue in his action chose in 727, 55 A.2d and cases there cited. it, citing no interest 282, Wallick, 306 59 S.Ct. U.S. Titus 653. There the Su L.Ed. 557, through speaking

preme Court, Justice assignment under where operated vest to York statute a New “ * * title to the claim assignee purpose suit, petitioner bring to enabling et al. v. STONE. McDONALD bound account to a to proceeds, 1169. suit for No. stranger re neither the court immaterial, since Appeals Court by petitioner’s prejudiced spondent was Columbia. District of them.” The decision to disclose failure 14, Argued Jan. say assignee such an went on to party interest” qualified “the Feb. Decided pur assignment is for the though the only is obli pose of suit proceeds

gated account assignor. To the same effect

suit to Shoreridge Co., 24 Cal. Oil

are Mitchell P.2d 77 P.2d App.2d Weissbaum, Cal.App.

Brennan Mfg. Scales, 1104; Ingle Co. v. 245 P. P.

Cal.App. no evidence other circumstance

of fraud any question to raise as to would seem legal title claim he was

plaintiff’s Consequently we have no

asserting. diffi deciding no im that there was

culty right maintain the suit

pediment name.

in his own argument ap oral before us urged improperly that he was re-

pellant *2 Kaufmann,

Joseph Washington, D. C. A. C., (Thomas Lodge, Washington, D. E. brief), appellants. Ralph Cusick, Washington, C., A. D. appellee. CAYTON, Judge,

Before Chief BARLOW, Judge, Associate Court, sitting designation.1 Judge. CAYTON, Chief part As of a transaction in which bought ap- nearby Maryland, a house in pellants andMr. Mrs. McDonald executed a second trust note for tó the order Philip B. who was the broker in endorsed the note the builders of house, turn en- Through dorsed it in blank. ap- negotiated

at a title pellee Matthew Stone. X. Aftér' paid off, had been Mr. and Mrs. McDonald charging sued Stone that he had only $2760, loaned them and that the dif- ference between that amount and the $3450 called constituted under Article 49 of the Code of ground Laws. Stone defended on the had never made a loan to the McDon- alds, pur- good faith Sitting chased the note at a discount. with- jury, out a found for defend- ant, plaintiffs have brought appeal. general contention is that judg- Their contrary ment was to the evidence trary to law.

Thus before nar us rows down to this: Did the failing err in to rule as a matter of law transaction was a direct loan Stone to the pur- McDonalds rather than a YH, 1940, Supp. did, a usurious discount? We transaction was not at a chase of the note bought a loan of but that Stone had not usurious Tur the note in faith. fact that Krevait et al. v. note at discount. paid than the fact D.C.Mun.App., A.2d 207. See less amount over, 20%. *3 App.D.C. note does not of itself taint the transaction Lilly, McNeill et al. 65 v. Maryland Metropolitan to as Trust cases usurious. Loan & F.2d There are no 356; App.D.C. the v. 44 McNeill contrary. Schafer, Article of Co. the Indeed rely appellants Lilly, App.D.C. 210, et which al. on Turover, D.C.Mun.App., faith Krevait et in expressly protects one who al. 39 A.2d 207. paper.2 negotiable that evidence was The uncontradicted compelling Nor is anything more met McDonald printed Stone had until never in the the fact that in the note years after money” than two purchase were words “deferred testified McDonald himself by Plaintiff typewriter, leaving X’d out face the Joe purchase help money finance the that in order to “given of the as note to read Key promised to the broker house circum loaned.” In o«fthe various view and his wife- a loan for which he described, obtain stances we we think it can note for make trust description $3450 would a second changed not be said that this He admitted net. would obtain $2760 and the McDonalds and transaction between the was know who the note, that he did not into the holder of the ultimate that the note put the and up who $2760 a loan Nor direct between them. does such his en- signed himself and wife and a result follow from fact that the note the seller, Sligo to the by the broker completed dorsed on and the days that a few Corporation. He said day. the same of This the circum showing payment book later received a he weighed stances to be the other note and owner of case, that was the require Stone the ruling in but it the. did not a be made thenceforth payments plaintiffs. that in favor of that he had also admitted He to Stone. approach, from another Arguing anyone dealings with other any never had appellants say Stone had no seller, Sligo Hills than the actual making notice that he was a loan Key. broker and the directly McDonalds, such notice dispute that the broker no There is imputed should be to him the “because title Zirwes who was man named contacted a company, special agent, who acted who Baltimore and estate broker in a attempting instructions, in carry out his purchase of in the turn interested Stone in had notice of the facts.” As to this conten evidence a letter There was in the note. tion there is also no' compelling evidentiary Zirwes wrote to which appellants’ position. for It is ele client he had who effect mentary that the existence of is agency prop- trust second a $3450 fact, of P. M. Barger Lumber Also erty the net amount $2760. for Whitehouse, Cir., v.Co. 182F.2d and from was a letter in evidence proving agency burden is transmitting a check for upon him it. who asserts Troietto G. H. ques- purchase of the note in Co., Cir., Hammond Swift pres- Zirwes tion. Neither Stone Co., App.D.C. White Oak Coal company. at the title the settlement ent at Directly applicable to this situation just Best, evidence as we have Clemson Wash. it, said, 25 P.Zd 1033. There it we think summarized apparently concluding, he justified in “Nor do we think that the lender makes usury plea legal be available shall same a bona No fide legal equitable assignee sideration, any against or or without notice of subsequent assignment any bond, obligatory, or bill of the creation bill bolder exchange, promissory Maryland, or other ne- thereof. Annotated Code Mack, 1939, gotiable instrument, where such Article Section 2. shall have received or holder endorsee

«27 agent foremost, plaintiff First broker Ms the mere received way broker to be payment turns the over to the credit in house accepts ¡borrower, $2,760 a sum of eventually paid transmitted to designat- $3,450 plus mortgage note and in which he interest. 6% payee place, ed are mortgagee. These second note was same dated the be date place facts and which should the settlement circumstances took think and I determining it can into consideration be assumed taken that the two endorse- is, broker but neither ments on day note were made the same Though day. because the are conclusive.” credit was made on that words, companies appears other knowledge common that title to have been one *4 usually employed by purchasers of pertinent questions transaction. Certain property, who in the record not disclose case does stand unanswered. Defendant says engaged company made ño' services the title loan but instead all note. purchase? case. There was no evidence at From did whom Why employed Key, payable purpose. Why that under We broker? did conclude endorse the note required to judge Corporation? evidence the trial was not Was ever rule that the owner corporation, note ? Did of Stone. the actual owner of the ? Did become note corporation plaintiff agree that the perhaps The has doubtful and price property should be increased suspicious aspects. But viewed in when it was learned that entirety the was such that either evidence give part pay- second trust note of two might different conclusions rea ment? Did the take the sonably be drawn so being from it. That part payment house and then sell it cannot said aat discount to At defendant? “plainly wrong or evi without instruction note marked was. Code, 1940, Supp. dence to it.” “money loaned.” VII, repeat To what was said Werth, U.S.App.D.C. Nolan v. issue case whether defend- 9, 10, “if the is not suffi ant made a bona fide purchase of a note at cient to show that the trial court’s decision a discount or whether guise under the necessarily right, wholly fails to show actually ¡buyinga note he made a direct and * * necessarily wrong usurious loan. The facts in the case were judgment this it follows that developed fully and somewhat reluc- be affirmed. tantly I reach the conclusion that since the proving usury plain- burden of was on the tiff, permissible for the trial court (concurring). to find that did not sustain that n burden. opinion my many Accordingly I concur in the result strongly usury. opinion. this case indicative the court’s