Case ID: or_60/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McBride", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued December 14,
    decided December 26, 1911.
    LONG v. HOEDLE.
    [119 Pac. 484.]
    Bills and Notes—Evidence—Presumptions.
    ■Where the execution of a note is denied, there is no presumption in favor of its regularity or the fairness of the transaction.
    From Marion: George H. Burnett, Judge.
    Statement by Mr. Justice McBride.
    This is an action by A. W. Long and J. A. Hewitt against Charles Hoedle, George Sakuler and John Koeneke to recover on a promissory note. Defendants answered, denying the execution of the note. They introduced some testimony tending to show that the instrument was a forgery. Among other instructions, the court gave the following:
    “The plaintiffs allege this was for a valuable consideration. On that point it is presumed that the promissory note was given for sufficient consideration; that is a presumption of the law. But this is a disputable presumption, and may be overcome by other evidence.”
    
      The court further instructed the jury:
    “It is presumed that the private transactions about this note have been fair and regular, and that is a disputable presumption which may be overcome by other evidence. These are pieces of evidence which the plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon; that the transaction of taking the note was fair and regular. But the defendants would be entitled to show that the contrary was true.”
    Reversed.
    For appellants there was a brief with an oral argument by Mr. Carey F. Martin.
    
    For respondents there was a brief with an oral argument by Mr. Alva 0. Condit.
    
   Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

Where the execution of a note is denied, there is no presumption in favor of the fairness or regularity of the transaction, and the instruction given was misleading and erroneous. Sears v. Daly, 43 Or. 346 (73 Pac. 5), and cases there cited.

No error appears in other rulings made and excepted to on the trial.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in this decision.