Case Name: COLUMBIA HOTEL CO. v. DR. CHARLES ROSENBERG
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-10-25
Citations: 122 Or. 675
Docket Number: 
Parties: COLUMBIA HOTEL CO. v. DR. CHARLES ROSENBERG.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 675–680

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs October 11,
affirmed October 25, 1927.
COLUMBIA HOTEL CO. v. DR. CHARLES ROSENBERG.
(260 Pac. 235.)
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. C. W. Robison and Mr. Harold Banta.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. Edward C. Judd.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
Defendant contends that because there is no allegation in the complaint of an assignment or transfer of the note from "Higgins, Treasurer, Astoria New Hotel Building Fund," to plaintiff that the complaint does not 'state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. It is argued that exhibit "A" shows on its face that the note is payable to Higgins, Treasurer, Astoria New Hotel Building Fund, and that plaintiff is not connected therewith. Defendant inferentially concedes that if the allegation that plaintiff is now the owner and holder of said agreement and note is an averment of fact the complaint is sufficient. Defendant contends that such allegation is a mere conclusion of law. Under the simple system of pleading obtaining in this state that allegation states the ultimate fact. It is much more than a mere legal conclusion : Or. L., § 67; Phillips, Code Pleading, § 325; 1 Sutherland, Code Pleading & Practice, p. 83, § 98. See in this connection, Bade v. Hibberd, 50 Or. 501 (93 Pac. 364).
Plaintiff was in possession of the promissory note and produced it at the trial. The effect of a transfer of a negotiable instrument without indorsement is to reduce it to a mere chose in action: Or. L., § 7841; First National Bank v. McCullough, 50 Or. 508, 514 (93 Pac. 366, 126 Am. St. Rep. 758, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1105). The presumption is that plaintiff is the owner of the note: Or. L., § 7841; 8 C. J. 1007, note 21 in § 1310. Since the note is in its possession and was produced at the trial defendant is not likely to be called upon by some other person to pay the note. Defendant is not in a situation to invoke a strict construction of the complaint: Phillips, Code Pleading, above. The complaint is very poorly drawn. A motion or a demurrer would have pointed out the defects in the complaint so that it could have been amended. The complaint will be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff and in the interest of justice.
Plaintiff being the owner of the note is the real party in interest: Or. L., § 27; First National Bank v. McCullough, above; Moore v. Miller, 6 Or. 254 (25 Am. Rep. 518); American Soda Fountain Co. v. Hogue, 17 N. D. 375 (116 N. W. 339, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1113, 1116).
Some authorities are to the effect that presumption of ownership does not follow'the possession of a chose in action payable to a person other than the one in possession. Defendant, however, has not advanced any defense. He has relied simply on general denial and seeks to defeat recovery solely upon extreme technical grounds. The evidence is not as complete as it could easily have been made, but there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury to the effect that plaintiff was the owner of the note and that it had not been paid.
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that defendant "became a subscriber to the capital stock of this plaintiff by signing and delivering to C. E. Higgins, as treasurer of this plaintiff, a certain agreement and promissory note:" The note alluded to is the basis of this action. The jury was justified in inferring that plaintiff is the corporation referred to in the contract involved in this action, and that "Astoria New Hotel Building Fund" was the name given the fund for convenience pending the incorporation of plaintiff. Making the note payable to Higgins, Treasurer, Astoria New Hotel Building Fund, was equivalent to naming plaintiff as payee after it was duly incorporated and organized. Plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action: Or. L., § 7834; First Nat. Bank v. McCullough, above. Plaintiff would have saved expense and trouble by alleging and proving these steps now inferred. The complaint is sufficient after verdict.
For these reasons the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.