193 Iowa 311 | Iowa | 1922
— The history of the check in question is as follows : Plaintiff, a married lady, lives in the - suburbs of the city . of Sioux City, and on December 27, 1919, was so fortunate as to have a comfortable balance to her credit in the Mid-West Bank in that city. On the day named, one Noltze, also known in the record as John Doe, appeared at plaintiff’s home, and
There was a trial to the court, which found for the plaintiff, that the check was given without consideration, that the intervener was not a holder or purchaser in good faith, and that the certification by the bank was void and of no effect, and entered judgment against the intervener for costs.
Further reference to the testimony would seem to be superfluous. There is no dispute that the check had its origin in the transaction testified to by plaintiff; and under the statute, the burden was on the intervener to establish his claim to be an innocent holder of the paper, by a preponderance of the evidence. It would be an affront to the intelligence of a court or jury to argue that intervener has met this burden of proof. On the contrary, intervener has conclusively convicted himself of bad faith. We will not prolong this opinion to point out or discuss the multiplied indicia of fraud and bad faith which are glaringly apparent at every turn in the intervener’s own story of his connection with the transaction; but to permit him to recover upon the check so procured would be a gross abusé of judicial authority. The fact that the check was certified does not obviate the rule that the holder who seeks to recover thereon against the bank must be a holder in good faith. If, for example, the bank by mistake certifies the check of one who has no money on deposit, it may well be held estopped to deny the effect of its certification, as against one who has received in good faith; but a holder who takes it with notice of the mistake
The many cases cited by appellant’s counsel as to the immunity of innocent holders of commercial paper against defenses by makers are doubtless good law, but the intervener fails at the threshold of his case to show himself entitled to the benefit of the rules so relied upon.
Substantial justice appears to have been done, and the decree of the trial court is — Affirmed.