Court Opinion

ID: 9826345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:47:38.1656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:01.238445
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action upon two* promissory notes, alleged to have been executed by the defendants under their firm: name, in* favor of the plaintiff.
The defendants denied the allegations of the complaint, except the fact of partnership*, and set up as: a defense, “that at the time of the alleged execution, of the notes in suit, the defendant, A. B. Dantzler, was without authority to borrow money in* the firm* name, and if he did' borrow money from *338the plaintiff, and execute to him the notes in suit, it was for his own private benefit and use, and that the plaintiff had knowledge of these facts.”
Also, “that the defendants, A. D. Dantzler, and his brother, the plaintiff, fraudulently and collusively made and accepted the notes in suit, in fraud of the rights of these defendants, and without their knowledge or consent; -and, so far as the partnership is concerned, these notes are without consideration.”
Also, “that the plaintiff, in collusion with his brother, the defendant, A. L. Dantzler, fraudulently waited until after said business had been wound up, and the defendant, A. D. Dantzler, had drawn from the firm whatever amounts were due him for salary, before any demand was made, in order that these defendants might be compelled to pay the whole amount of the notes, although no consideration passed from said plaintiff to defendants.”
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed upon exceptions, that will be set out in the report of the case.
1 When fraud is alleged, considerable latitude is permissible in the introduction of testimony, even when it is only remotely connected with the transaction out of which the controversy has arisen. One reason is, that in cases of fraud it frequently happens, that it is impossible to produce direct and positive evidence of such fact, and the party alleging it is necessarily forced to rely upon the inference to be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. There might not be a single fact, in itself, sufficient to establish the fraud, yet when they are considered together, their combined effect may produce conviction upon the minds of the jurors. Applying this rule to the case under consideration we are satisfied that the testimony, to the introduction of which the plaintiff objected, was admissible..
2 Furthermore, the introduction of irrelevant testimony must necessarily be left in large measure to> the discretion of the presiding Judge, and his rulings are *339not appealable unless there was an abuse of discretion, which has not been made to appear in this case.
These views dispose of all the exceptions, except the ninth and tenth.
3 The ninth exception assigns error in overruling the motion for a new trial, on the ground that there was no testimony to support the verdict. While there was no direct and positive testimony sustaining the defenses set up in the answer, still there were facts and circumstances, from which the jury might properly have drawn the inference, in favor of said allegations. The rule is thus stated in Railroad v. Partlow, 14 Rich., 237: “It may be that no one of the facts would of itself warrant the inference and yet, when taken together, they may produce belief, which is the object of all evidence.” In 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 51 a, it is said: “It is not necessary that the evidence should bear directly upon the issue. It is admissible if it tends to prove ihe issue or constitutes a link in the chain of proof; although alone it might not justify a verdict in accordance with it. All the circumstances mentioned in this ground may be regarded as links in the chain of proof, from which the jury might deduce the inference of the defendants’ privity and direction in the acts of trespass. This is usually the case where an issue depends on circumstantial evidence. Among the circumstances was the fact that, having the opportunity to take the stand and exculpate himself, the defendant declined to do so.” The plaintiff in the case under consideration failed to become a witness.
4 The tenth exception assigns error in refusing to set aside the verdict, on the ground that the jury found for the defendants generally, including the defendant, A. L. Dantzler, who did not answer the complaint, and whose liability is admitted. The record does, not disclose the fact that this ground was urged upon the motion for a new trial; but the record does show that A. D. Dantzler has not entered up judgment on said verdict.
*340Furthermore, this objection should have been interposed when the verdict was announced.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.