Farmers Bank v. First National Bank

175 S.W. 1019, 164 Ky. 548, 1915 Ky. LEXIS 410
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMay 7, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.W. 1019 (Farmers Bank v. First National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farmers Bank v. First National Bank, 175 S.W. 1019, 164 Ky. 548, 1915 Ky. LEXIS 410 (Ky. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Turner

Affirming the first-named appeal, and reversing each of the others.

[549]*549These four appeals grew out of the same transactions, and as they were consolidated in the lower court, they will'be passed upon together here.

The three appeals in which the Boyds are appellees present precisely the same questions and will be first disposed, of*

On the 7th of August, 1912, one W. C. Lacy sold to each of the Boyds four shares of the capital stock of the Tennessee Life Insurance Company at the price of $250 per share, each of them executing to Lacy his note, for $1,000 payable the 1st of January, 1913, and bearing interest from date.

Lacy seems not to have been acquainted in the vicinity where he sold this stock, and before selling it he went to Caldwell, the cashier of the Farmers Bank of Lynnville, and told him the nature of his business and requested that he give to him a list of names of persons in that vicinity who were financially responsible, to aid bim in the sale of the stock; the cashier, Caldwell, after inquiring from him the kind of stock he was selling, and believing from the statements of Lacy that it was a good proposition, gave him the list of names, which included the Boyds, as well as the names of two of Caldwell’s relatives and some of the stockholders in the bank of which he was cashier. At the time Lacy voluntarily offered to give to Caldwell a commission of $5.00 per share for each share of stock which might be sold to such persons, and arranged with Caldwell, after consultation by Caldwell with the members of the finance committee of his bank, to discount with the bank any paper which might be received by him (Lacy) in payment for such stock, the rate of discount to be two per cent, from the face of the paper, which was to bear six per cent interest from its date, or an equivalent of an eight per cent discount, and in addition thereto to give to Caldwell his commission of $5.00 per share.

On the day the three notes were executed they were endorsed by Lacy and discounted to the bank, the two per cent, discount being taken from the face of the notes and the $5.00 per share being paid to Caldwell, and Caldwell issued to Lacy, in accordance with their previous arrangement, certificates of deposit aggregating $2,880, bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. At about 10 o ’clock A. M. on the morning of the 13th of August these certificates of deposit were assigned and transferred before maturity, and in due course of busi[550]*550ness for a valuable consideration to the First National Bank of Dickson, Tennessee.

The Boyds having become dissatisfied with their trade, and having received, as alleged, information to the effect that the stock was not as valuable as it had been represented, and that a fraud had been practiced upon them, on the 13th of August instituted in the Graves Circuit Court their three separate actions against Lacy, seeking to have the notes sq executed by them cancelled, procured certain attachments to issue against the fund supposed to be on deposit by Lacy in the Farmers Bank of Lynnville.

Thereafter the Farmers Bank of Lynnville instituted actions against the three Boyds upon their notes, and the First National Bank of Dickson, Tenn., an action against the Farmers Bank of Lynnville on the three certificates of deposit.

The three actions of the Farmers Bank of Lynnville against the Boyds were tried together and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, upon which judgment was entered. Thereafter the court entered a judgment in favor of the First National Bank of Dickson against the Farmers Bank of Lynnville upon the three certificates of deposit, and from those two judgments these four appeals are prosecuted by the Farmers Bank of Lynnville.

The answer of the Boyds admitted the execution of the notes, but charged a failure of consideration and a fraud practiced upon them by Lacy, and that the bank •and its officers at the time the notes were discounted had actual knowledge • of such failure of consideration and of the fraud so practiced by Lacy. These allegations were put in issue by denials in the reply.

So that the only issues were whether there had been fraud practiced by Lacy in procuring the notes, and, if so, did the bank or its officers prior to the discounting of the notes have actual knowledge thereof or knowledge of such facts that their action in discounting the same amounted to bad faith.

Our Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 3720b, Kentucky Statutes, Sub-section 52, defines a holder in due course as follows:

“A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:
“(1) That the instrument is complete and regular upon its face.
[551]*551“ (2) That be became tbe holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that- it bad been previously dishonored, if such was tbe fact.
“ (3) That be took it in good faith and for value.
“(4) That at the time it was negotiated to him be bad no notice of any infirmity in tbe instrument or defect in tbe title of the person negotiating it.”

Sub-section 56 of tbe same act prescribes what shall constitute notice of an infirmity, in tbe. following language :

“To constitute notice of an infirmity in tbe instrument or defect in tbe title of tbe person negotiating tbe same, tbe person to whom it is negotiated must have bad actual knowledge of tbe infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that bis action in taking tbe instrument amounted to bad faith.”

Tbe chief ground urged for reversal in tbe three Boyd cases is that there was a total failure of evidence to show that tbe bank, prior to tbe discounting of tbe notes, bad any actual knowledge of tbe fraud of Lacy or any knowledge of such facts as would have amounted to bad faith upon its part, and this contention involves a statement of tbe evidence on those issues.

Tbe evidence of Caldwell as to tbe transactions between him and Lacy, both before and at tbe time of tbe discounting of tbe notes, is as follows:

“Mr. Juclson Pigue came to Lynnville a week before him and Lacy came, and introduced himself to me. I never bad met him before, and be told me that be and Mr. Lacy bad been working at Water Valley section selling insurance stock, Lacy was, and be carried him, and that • they were about through down there, and they wanted to come up in our country, in our neighborhood, and work some up there, and wanted to know if tbe bank would handle some notes, provided they sold any stock, and that when they did they would put tbe money on time deposit, us issuing them a certificate of deposit bearing three per cent, interest; I told him that I was quite sure we would, we bad bought some from Mr. Hooper; be informed me that Mr. Hooper was Mr. Lacy’s partner, and that I would let him know when be and Mr. Lacy came back, that I would have to see tbe balance-of the-financial committee; I saw them, told them tbe circumstances; and also, Mr. Pigue wanted to know what part of bis mission was to know what rate [552]*552of interest we were charging; I told him we would handle them at the same rate we handled those others that we bought from Hooper; one of them was on Mr. Stevens for $1,050.00, and one was Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Citizens Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Hays
180 S.W. 811 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 S.W. 1019, 164 Ky. 548, 1915 Ky. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-bank-v-first-national-bank-kyctapp-1915.