Bank of Spearfish v. Graham

Citations

• 16 S.D. 49
• 91 N.W. 340
• 1902 S.D. LEXIS 77

Syllabus

<p>1. Where orders shown to a prospective purchaser by an agent were proved to have been fictitious, and all representations concerning their procurement apparently untrue, the question whether such deception was resorted to to defraud him should have been left to the jury.</p> <p>2. Where a purchaser was justified in believing that forged orders shown him were genuine, and that fraudulent representations as to purchases were true, the question whether he was induced by such forged orders and fraudulent representations to execute notes should have been left to the jury, as, under Oomp. Laws, § 3509, “actual fraud is always a question of fact.”</p> <p>3. 'It was for the jury to determine whether the statements were mere expressions of opinion, or averments of material facts.</p> <p>4. A subsequent holder suing on notes claimed to have been procured by fraud could not object that the maker had not returned the property for which they were given.</p> <p>5. Where the jury might have found, under proper instructions, evidence of fraud sufficient to cast on an indorsee the burden of showing that the notes were obtainedfin good faith for value, it was error to direct h verdict for him.</p>