Security State Bank v. Seaunier

Citations

• 104 Kan. 7
• 178 P. 239
• 1919 Kan. LEXIS 172

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Promissory Note — Held by Indorsee — Competent Evidence to Show Fraud and Want of Consideration. In an action on a promissory note that has been transferred to the plaintiff, where the defense is that the note was obtained by fraud and was without consideration, and that the plaintiff had purchased the note in bad faith with knowledge of ■ the fraud, chattel mortgages given by the payee to the plaintiff to secure existing debts and other debts to be afterward created are competent evidence to establish links in a chain of circumstances that would tend to show that the payee had obtained the note by fraud, and that the plaintiff had knowledge of that fraud and was not a holder of the note in good faith.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence of Payee’s Reputation for Honesty and Integrity. Under the circumstances described in the first paragraph of this syllabus, where the payee of the note was an intinerant doctor who advertised his business by a dog, pony, and medicine show, it was proper to show by reputable doctors the payee's reputation for honesty and integrity, and his reputed ability as a physician.</p> <p>3. Same — Evidence of Fraud — Burden of Proof. The evidence' that was admitted, together with the evidence that should have been admitted as outlined in the first and second paragraphs of this syllabus, was sufficient to compel the court to submit the cause to the jury for the purpose of determining whether the payee had been guilty of fraud in obtaining the note, and, if the jury found that fraud existed, would have been sufficient to place on the plaintiff the burden of showing that it acquired the note in due course.</p>