89 Iowa 713 | Iowa | 1893
Lead Opinion
The check upon which this action is founded is as follows:
“$362.68. “Monticello, Iowa, Oct. 17, 1890.
“6r. W. <& G. L. Lovell, Bankers:
“Pay Osborn Brothers, or bearer, three hundred sixty-two, 68-100 dollars.
“John Jacobs.”
The petition alleges that the payees of the check, in the usual course of business, transferred it to the plaintiffs by writing thereon “Osborn Brothers;” that it was forwarded through a bank in Dubuque to a bank in Monticello, which presented it to Gh W. & Gr. L. Lovell for payment, but that payment was refused for the reason that the defendant had ordered that payment be not made; and that the cheek was then duly protested.
The answer alleges that the check was given to pay the purchase price of one hundred and twenty-five young hogs which were sold by Osborn Brothers to the defendant; that, to induce him to purchase the hogs,
The defendant admits, in effect, that, if the plaintiffs are innocent purchasers of the check for value, they are entitled to recover its amount, but he insists that in law they are presumed to have taken it for collection only, with the right to return it when payment was refused. For the purpose of showing that such á presumption. is authorized, he offered to prove by two
We conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize a verdict for the defendant, and that the action of the court in directing a verdict for the plaintiff was right. The judgment is affirmed.
Rehearing
OPINION UPON REHEARING.
In a petition for rehearing, the appellant urges several objections to the opinion heretofore filed in this case, one of which demands notice.
It is said that the statement of the opinion that, as the signature which appeared to be indorsed on the check was not denied in writing, under oath, by the party whose signature it purported to be, it was the duty of the court to treat it as genuine and admitted, is erroneous. The answer does not deny specifically the genuineness of the signature, but avers that the check was delivered to the plaintiffs for the sole purpose of collecting it. There is a denial of some of the matters alleged in the petition, although it is at least doubtful if the genuineness of the indorsement is made an issue. We find, however, on further examination of the record, that the district court, in a ruling on the admission of testimony, treated the signature as
Other questions discussed in the petition for rehearing were so treated in the opinion that we do not deem it necessary to notice them further. The petition for rehearing is overruled.