Case Name: JEFFERSON, Respondent, v. BEAM, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1918-11-29
Citations: 41 S.D. 182
Docket Number: File No. 4334
Parties: JEFFERSON, Respondent, v. BEAM, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 182–184

Head Matter:
JEFFERSON, Respondent, v. BEAM, Appellant.
(169 N. W. 525).
(File No. 4334.
Opinion filed Nov. 29, 1918.
Rehearing denied March. 12, 1919).
Contracts — Note for Broker’s Commission on Personalty Exchange, Commission From Opposite Party, Effect re Defense to Note.
The fact that the note in suit was given plaintiff for commission on exchange of personalty, and that plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of defendant, received from the opposite party, his employer, a commission, is not a good defense; it appearing that jury, under instructions, must have believed that defendant knew the facts concerning plaintiff’s other employment and commission.
Whiting, P. J., and Polley, J., dissenting.
Action by C. C. Jefferson, against J. H. Beam, upon a promissory note. From a judgment for. plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Null & Royhl, for Appellant.
C. A. Kelley and James Byrnes, for Respondtent.
Appellant cited:
Leathers v. Canfield, 45 L. R. A., 33. Bee note 44-48; Lemon v. Little, 21 S. D., 628; Harris v. Leise, 29 S. D., 140; Bell v. McConnell, 37 Ohio State, 396, 41 Am. Rep. 528.
Respondent cited:
19 Cyc. 116, paragraph 4; Synott v. iShanghnessy, (Idaho), 7 Pac. 82; Langford v. Issenhuth, ’28 S. D. 451.

Opinion:
GATES, J.
Action upon a promissory note; defense, that it was given for a commission upon the exchange of personal property, and that plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of defendant, was then in the employ of the other party to the exchange and received a commission from him. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest. From the judgment and an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.
Under the instructions given, the jury must have believed that defendant knew of plaintiff's other employment, and that he was to receive compensation therefrom at the time he signed the note, and there was some evidence to warrant such belief. In the view which we take of this case the issue was solely a matter of credibility of the witnesses, and a dtetailed consideration of the case would serve no useful purpose.
The judgment and order appealed1 from are affirmed.