Bank of Commerce v. Sams

Citations

• 96 Kan. 437
• 152 P. 28
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 401

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1, Promissory Note — Ownership—Cashier’s Statement as to Ownership Competent against the Bank. Testimony that a cashier of a bank told the maker of a note,- nine months after its maturity, that the bank held the note for collection, is competent evidence on the question whether the bank was the owner of the note when it sought to recover on it several years afterwards, and when the bank asserted that its ownership of the note was based upon its acquisition a few days after its execution and long before it was due.</p> <p>2. Same — Subsequent Death of Cashier — His Statements Still Competent. The fact that the cashier was dead when the bank afterwards asserted its ownership and sought to collect on the note as its own property did nqt render incompetent the testimony showing the conversation between the cashier and the maker at the time the bank sought to collect for the benefit of the original payee, nor does such testimony violate any rule of evidence touching transactions with deceased persons.</p> <p>Í. Same — Evidence of Ownership. On March 8, 1907, defendant gave his note in favor of T., due September 8, 1907. On June 30, 1908, the cashier of a bank told defendant that the bank had received the note from T., for collection: Held, that when the bank in January, 1912, sued as owner of the note, asserting that it acquired it before maturity, the fact that the bank, through its cashier, sought to collect on the note in 1908 on behalf of T., is competent evidence on the question of ownership of the note.</p> <p>4. Same — Verdict Conclusive as to Facts. A general verdict forecloses all disputed questions of fact, and in the case at bar it determines adversely to the plaintiff, (1) its ownership of the note; (2) the time of the alteration of the instrument; (3) its claim to be a holder in due course; and the result is to defeat a recovery altogether.</p>