Sanford v. Moss — 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 710

Majority

p. 710

Henry Sanford, Resp’t, v. Isaac B. Moss, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,

Filed April 13, 1892.)

Headnote

Bills and notes—Seed contract—Bona fide holder.

In an action on a note given on the purchase of seed rye at a high price, it appeared that defendant was induced to make the purchase by the assurance oí a friend, who was agent of the vendor company, that it would sell from his crop twice as much for the same price, and that it was a great chance to make money. This agreement was not carried out, and it was claimed that false representations were made as to the responsibility of the company. Held, that although it was doubtful if the representation's had any influence in inducing defendant to buy and give the notes, yet they were sufficient to put the plaintiff to proof that he was a bona fide holder of the note for value, and that upon the evidence given to that effect the case was one for the determination of the jury.

Appeal from a judgment of the supreme court, entered in the Niagara county clerk’s office on the 10th day of September, 1891, against the defendant, Isaac B. Moss, for $429.41 damages and costs; and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial upon the minutes.

Burrell & Parker, for app’lt; Richard Crowley, for resp’t.

The promissory notes upon which the judgment in this action was obtained were given by the defendant in payment for twenty bushels of seed rye, at the price of fifteen dollars a bushel, pursuant to an agreement entered into between the defendant and the Pennsylvania Seed Company, Limited, by the terms of which the seed company was to furnish to the defendant the rye, at the price named, and the defendant was to sow the rye. The seed company agreed to sell for the defendant, from the crop.raised from the seed rye the following year, forty bushels at fifteen dollars a bushel, the seed company reserving to itself, as commission for selling, five dollars a bushel.

The defendant is a farmer residing in Niagara county ; he is sixty-five years of age, and owns a farm of 370 acres in that

p. 711

county. He knew the rye lie was agreeing to buy an pay fifteen dollars a bushel for was not worth to exceed sixty-five to seventy-five cents a bushel. He testified that Mr. Seeley, the agent of the seed company, explained to him the plan of operation the company proposed to pursue in selling grain; it apparently involved cheating some one eventually, but Seeley, whom defendant testified he had known for a number of years, and had done business with him, assured him it was a great chance to make money, that it was all right, and made such strong protestations of friendship for the defendant that he allayed any apprehension the defendant may have had that he might be the victim; and so he entered into the agreement.

He testified that he fully understood the terms of the contract and gave the promissory notes, one payable to H. Seeley or bearer, and the other to W. J. Curtiss or bearer. Unlike many transactions in grain, the twenty bushels of rye were actually delivered to the defendant. He sowed the rye the same year, but the seed company failed to carry out the agreement by selling the rye for the defendant the next year.

The defendant’s evidence tended to show that the seed company’s agent made false representations as to the responsibility and standing of the seed company. It is quite doubtful if the false representations had any influence in inducing the defendant to enter into the contract and give the notes. They were, however, of sufficient importance to put the burden upon the plaintiff of proving, in order to recover, that he was a bona fide purchaser of the notes, for value, before maturity.

The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that he purchased the notes before they were due, and paid full value for them, and that he had no knowledge or information when he purchased them that they were obtained by fraudulent means, but supposed them to be genuine notes.

The questions of fact were submitted to the jury under a change of the court quite as favorable to the defendant as the evidence justified, and the jury upon evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict found for the plaintiff.

We have examined the defendant’s exceptions, and find nothing in them calling for a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment and order appealed from, should be affirmed.

Dwight, P. J., and Macomber, J., concur.