Home/Supreme Court of Iowa/Rubio Savings Bank v. Acme Farm Products Co.

Rubio Savings Bank v. Acme Farm Products Co.

37 N.W.2d 16, 240 Iowa 547, 9 A.L.R. 2d 459, 1949 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 356
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedApril 5, 1949
DocketNo. 47335.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 37 N.W.2d 16 (Rubio Savings Bank v. Acme Farm Products Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rubio Savings Bank v. Acme Farm Products Co., 37 N.W.2d 16, 240 Iowa 547, 9 A.L.R. 2d 459, 1949 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 356 (iowa 1949).

Opinion

Oliver, J.

— Defendant Acme Farm Products Company is a partnership composed of defendants Paul M. Ross and Han- *549 nail J. Ross, husband and wife, of Chicago, Illinois, at which place the partnership is engaged in, the produce business. Weisz Produce was a trade name under which Maurice Weisz operated a produce business at Brighton, Washington County, Iowa. Early in 1947 Weisz Produce made a number of sales and shipments of eggs and poultry to Acme Farm Products Company. The checks received in payment were deposited by Weisz Produce in its account in plaintiff, Rubio Savings Bank, of Brighton. The two checks in suit, for $6500 and $5000, respectively, were made to Weisz Produce by Acme, April 1 and April 3. Weisz Produce indorsed them, deposited them in its account in plaintiff-bank and received credit for the amounts thereof.

Plaintiff forwarded the checks for collection through channels. Before they were presented to the Chicago bank .upon which they were drawn, Acme ordered payment stopped: “Reason: Merchandise for which these vouchers were advanced was diverted to other outlets (dealers).” In the meantime Weisz Produce had withdrawn from its account in plaintiff-bank the amounts of these checks. Several days later the unpaid checks were returned to plaintiff and were charged back against Weisz Produce account, in which certain deposits had been made during the interim. The balance due plaintiff-bank was $3097.84. Weisz disappeared and was adjudicated a bankrupt. Thereafter plaintiff brought this action for' $11,500. Apparently the right of plaintiff to charge back the checks was challenged by another party in an action then pending and there was some thought the trustee in bankruptcy for Weisz might have rights in the matter.

Defendants’ answer alleged the checks were without consideration and were procured by fraud. In reply plaintiff alleged it was a holder in due course. The questions of fact involved in these issues were submitted to a jury. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $3201.10 ($3097.84 with interest). Defendants have appealed.

I. The trial court overruled various contentions and pleaded defenses based upon defendants’ theory the checks were not negotiable and instructed the jury they were negotiable. Defendants assign error to these orders and instructions. Except for *550 the statement stamped thereon, “Protested for Non-Payment Apr 7-1947”,' etc., the following photograph shows substantially the appearance of'the face of the $6500 check when first received by plaintiff bank:

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

Related

Southern National Bank of North Carolina v. Universal Acceptance Corp.
163 S.E.2d 10 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Cody v. J. A. Dodds & Sons
110 N.W.2d 255 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1961)
Shapiro v. Sioux City Dressed Beef Inc.
151 N.E.2d 492 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
United Finance Co. v. ANDERSON
319 P.2d 571 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1957)
State v. Haesemeyer
79 N.W.2d 755 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1956)
X-L Liquors, Inc. v. Taylor
111 A.2d 753 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1955)
Fagen Elevator v. Pfiester
56 N.W.2d 577 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1953)
Hanson v. Birmingham
92 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Iowa, 1950)
Ballester v. Descartes, Treasurer of Puerto Rico
181 F.2d 823 (First Circuit, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 N.W.2d 16, 240 Iowa 547, 9 A.L.R. 2d 459, 1949 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubio-savings-bank-v-acme-farm-products-co-iowa-1949.