Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-04-03
JUDGE WiLLETT RULES FOR
FIRST NATIONAL IN CASE
AGAINST pILENREck.
HOLDS THAT FRAUD, AS
DEFENSE, 70 NOT PROVED
DiIenbeek's Attorneys Serve Notice Of
Appeal and Prepare to Post Large
Bond Pending Adjudieation-Judse
Sn.ta;ne Bank. Attorney in Ruling
Directing Jury to Return Verdict

! A directed verdict for $10,2S5.90,
land the costs was returned by jury
in the district court late Friday after
noon in the case of the First National
Bank, of this city, VS.. B. c. Dilenbeck.
| of Perry. Judge James w. Willett di-
! rected the verdict on the motion Of c.
H. Z. Boardman, attorney for the bank,
! after H. G. Giddings, of Mitchell, S. D.,
and Carney & Carney, attorneys for
Dilenbeck. had closed the evidence for
their client.
Dilenbeck's lawyers served notice of
appeal at once, and made plans for
, their client to post bond for $4,000
pending adjucation on the appeal.
Suit on ,Promissory Notes.
The suit was an action on three
promlssory notes given by Dilerbeck
to the bank. Dilenbeck alleged the
! notes We're given in exchange for A.
: E. Shorthill Company sight drafts for
$4,000 that Dilenheck had accepted and
SO endorsed. but that his acceptance Of
these sight drafts was procured by
fraud on the part of c. r. Speers. pres
ident of the A. E. Shorthill Company
by misrepresentation as to the solv-
ency and assets of the A. f. Shorthill
Company and the collateral security
that was posted in the First National
Bank to secure payment. When Dilen-
beck was asked by the bank to take up
the overdue sight drafts of the Short
hill Company that he had endorsed,
and give his promissorY notes for the
$4,000 and past due interest of 1858,
he did so.
Argues Fraud Not Proved.
The banks attorney asked the court
to direct verdict for the alleged reas-
ons that there was no proof of fraud
on the part of the bank or the A. E.
Shorthill Company, of which notice was
given to the bank; also, that the evil
dence showed that when Dilenbeck
took up the sight drafts with his en-
dorsement on them and gave his notes
in their place, by that act he admitted
there was no fraud and thus took away
the right of the bank to recover from
the Shorthill Company for fraud.
Court Rules Fraud Not Shown.
Judge Willett held fraud had not
been established. His ruling is in part
as follows:
Without discussing each PROPOSE
ton advanced In the motion OF the
plaintiff for a directed verdict the court
is of the opinion that there IS an en-
tire absence of proof to the effect that
the notes declared upon were procured
by fraud in their inception. or that
there was any fraudulent inducement
perpetrated by the plaintiff, or any
one else. in behalf of the plaintiff. to
induce the defendant to give the three
notes to, plaintiff declared upon in this
II, I,, t,,f bn
evidence that the plaintiff bank has
paid 100 cents on the dollar for the ac-
ceptanees for which the notes in con-
troversy were given.
And in my mind. the bona fides OF
the transaction, so far as the plaintiff
bank is concerned. canno; be ques-
toned from any evidence that has been
adduced here on the part of the defend
ant: that even tho there was suffi-
cient in the evidence TO put the plain
tiff bank upon inquiry. in the opinion
Of the court. the settlement that was
made July Is, 1914, between this de-
PENDANT and the plaintiff bank, where
by the plaintiff surrendered all of its
acceptances to the extent of $4,000 and
accrued interest, ana took the individ-
ual paper of the defendant for the gross
amount of said acceptances, including
the interest thereon. extending the time
of payment and thereby effectually
making compromise OF the affair be-
tween the bank and the defendant
growing out Of such acceptances,
should stand.
This in substance. Is the opinion o.
the court, upon which its decision is
based. We fail to find that there was
any fraud perpetrated upon the de-
PENDANT in the inception of the notes
declared upon. or that there were any
fraudulent inducements whereby the
defendant was induced to give the
notes declared upon.
"The motion of plaintiff, and each
division or part thereof. will be sus-
tanned and there will be directed
verdict in this case for the plaintiff.'
Historical Society Meeting.
Jacob Van Der Zee. Of the State Uni
versity of Iowa, addressed members OF