Court Opinion

ID: 9833666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:56:02.777423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.729117
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion we stated that appellant assigned as the sole ground of error the fact that the court gave judgment for the plaintiff “because the uncontradicted evidence shows that the note was without consideration,” etc. We may say that statement should be amplified to include the further proposition that the note sued upon was fraudulently placed in circulation.
[3] We are well aware of the line of cases which hold that a jury is left to weigh the testimony of an interested witness such as appellant is, and may wholly disregard the same. A court sitting in the trial of a case without a jury may do the same. But the son, D. W. Word, also testified to the same facts that appellant did, and he was not interested, except for the fact that he happened to be his father’s son. This fact does not discredit him, and while it might go to the weight of the testimony, the court, sitting as a jury, would not be authorized wholly to disregard his statements. Both his testimony and appellant’s tend strongly to show that the note was fraudulently placed in circulation, and there is absolutely no showing made by appellee that the note was obtained before maturity for value and without notice of its infirmity. When the burden of showing these facts shifted to appellee by reason of said proof having been made that the note was fraudulently placed in circulation, and appellee failed to meet'said proof, the court was not justified in rendering judgment on the note.
[4] “It is a general rule, upheld by the great majority of the reported cases, that evidence of fraud in the origin or transfer of commercial paper throws on the holder the burden of proving his good faith; and the question presented in the foregoing case is whether proof that the paper was negotiated, contrary to an agreement, before the happening of a certain future contingency, is such a fraud as will shift the burden of proof. The *847cases upon this point are very harmonious in holding that such a negotiation is a fraud upon the right of the maker or other person to be charged, and shifts the burden of proof onto the holder.” McNight v. Parsons, 136 Iowa, 390, 113 N. W. 858, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 718, 125 Am. St. Rep. 265, 15 Ann. Cas. 665, and cases in note, among which is Rische v. Bank, cited in our original opinion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.