Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1879-07-03
WHOLE No. 1890.
The Supreme Court CT Iowa De-
cides Against the Swindling
and Altered Notes Oh.
tanned From Far.
merE.

The Supreme court of Iowa, at
Des Moines. has rendered very
righteous and jast decision For
the past few years tho State has
been overrun with lightning rcd
peddiers, pa,eut.right sgen,s, clcth
swindlers and peripatbetic frauds of
every kind. The swindles perpe
trated were only limited to the
shrewdness and cunning of the ras-
cal aud the credulity of the victim.
First came the contract or sgree.
ment swindle, whereby . person
agreed to becam the agent of some
device, take 80 many to sell, etc.
This agreement was so cunhingly
printed thatit read Rs a straigh,ior.
ward contract, but when cut apart
one portion was regular snap
Judgment promlssory note, while
the other par, was a memoranda Of
the agreement. affirming the note,
which generally called for several
times more than the amount agreed
upon as the signer understood it.
These the courts have decided must
be paid, when held by third persons,
innocent purchasers, before maiuri-
lyon the ground tina, person who
signs an agreement voluntarily il
presumed to know the contents OF
such agreement Then came the
fraudulent or raised note swindler,
who would get note from a far
mer for small sum. raise it hun
dred dollars. sell it to q bank, and
the farmer would have it to pay, the
lower courts holding that there
were no defenses of fraud as be
tween the Innocent purchaser of
fraudulent nate aud tho maker, and
in severa cases il was held that
where the maker of u pote lsft the
blanks untitled, so ths. il could be
rai~ed by writing in larger amount,
it was negligence of the maker,
whereby the fraud was permitted
to be made, and he could not take
advantage OF his own Iaches. U.u-
ally the decision of the lower courts
was sufficient, and the maker paid
the note rather than contest il fur
Their. And these swindlers have
done thriving business until at
last John Clark. of Marion county,
decided to 60 the court Of last re-
sort. He gave note for ten dol
10 tao rygr ha L.
and the name of the bank at which
it payable, entirely blank, because
the person To whom he gave il said
an agent wonld he around To co'l.c'
it when due. The payee then wrote
in .'one hundred dollsrs" before the
s'ten" and inserted "Knoxvilie Ma
tional Bank, Knoxville, | wa in
the blank. ard sold il to hat bank.
Several other Ike notes were also
sold. When due the bank brought
an action TO recover, and under the
general rule of negotiable paper the
lower court gave Judgment for the
bank. The Supreme court, however.
reversed the decision, holding that
the case did not come within the
rule that where the blanks were
left unified in a note, the presump-
tion OF law was, the payee had au-
thority to fill the blanks, and if he
exceeded the amount agreed upon
with the maker, it was simply a
breach of trust and did not rel a,e
the maker from liability. La the
case at bar, the alteration Of the
amoEas was forgery, and the law
would not make person cirilly liza
BILE for tho criminal acts of another,
or perform contract be did not
make. The courts have gone only
so far as "a make person ciVily
liable for the fraudulent acts Of
another. This is step beyond.
The alteration of this note was a
forgery criminal act.
This decision will tend to stop
the sale of these notes, and Of near
ly all negntiabl, paper, and compel
the payecs of notes to hold them
until due. which will l,ta check
upon the ra.cality practioed by
these agents OF patent rights. They
will now probably go back To the
double jointed agreement, in which
is concealed promissory note with
the "raise" put in before il il signed,
for which farmers should keep an
eye open. To be safe, sign nothing
whatever. Pay for what you get or
lei il alone.