GRANT v. ENNIS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 281.

Attorney(S)

Ashby S. James, for appellants. — Where there is an endorsement by the payees of a negotiable note, if they afterwards sue in their own names upon same, it devolves upon them to show by competent evidence that they are still the owners of the note, and have not parted with the title to it. The first note here sued on is payable to Marie L. Ennis, and is endorsed "Marie L. Ennis;" and is further endorsed, "Pay to the order of Panhandle National Bank for collection, account of First National Bank, Chicago. December 26, 1890. H.R. Symonds, Cashier." Walsh v. Lindo, 7 Cranch, 159; Southern Bank v. Savings Bank, 2 Ga. 253; Spriggs v. Cuney, 19 Mart., 253; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1196. No brief for appellees reached the Reporter.

Judges

STEPHENS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs sued on two promissory notes and sought foreclosure of a vendor's lien. The notes were payable to plaintiff (Marie L. Ennis) or order and were endorsed by her in blank. One note contained a further endorsement by a Chicago bank to a Texas bank "for collection." The case was tried in Wichita before Hon. Geo. E. Miller. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed. No brief for the appellees was filed with the Reporter.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether notes payable to plaintiff or order and endorsed in blank, when produced by the plaintiff and offered in evidence, constitute a prima facie showing of ownership equivalent to notes payable to bearer.
Whether a further endorsement by a bank "for collection" disproves the plaintiff's ownership of a note endorsed in blank.
Whether an indefinite description of land appearing on the face of a note may be cured by oral testimony.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Where there is an endorsement by the payees of a negotiable note, if they afterward sue in their own names upon it, they must show by competent evidence that they are still the owners of the note and have not parted with title.
Authorities cited in support: Walsh v. Lindo, 7 Cranch, 159; Southern Bank v. Savings Bank, 2 Ga. 253; Spriggs v. Cuney, 19 Mart., 253; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1196.

The opinion notes that no brief for appellees reached the Reporter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Walsh v. Lindo, 7 Cranch, 159	Cited by appellants to support the proposition that endorsing payees who sue must prove continued ownership.	Cited in appellants' brief; the court's opinion does not adopt this authority as controlling.
Southern Bank v. Savings Bank, 2 Ga. 253	Cited by appellants in support of the burden-of-proof argument regarding endorsement and ownership.	Cited in appellants' brief; the court did not rely on it in its analysis as expressed in the opinion.
Spriggs v. Cuney, 19 Mart., 253	Cited by appellants on the same point concerning endorsement and proof of ownership.	Cited in appellants' brief; the court's written reasoning does not rely on this authority.
2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1196	Cited by appellants regarding legal effect of endorsement and proof of ownership.	Cited in appellants' brief; the court cites a different section of Daniel on Negotiable Instruments in its opinion.
Johnson v. Mitchell, 50 Tex. 212	Cited by the court to support that notes payable to plaintiff or order and endorsed in blank, when produced by plaintiff, make a prima facie case of ownership.	Relied on by the court as authority for treating the endorsed-in-blank note as prima facie evidence of ownership, like a bearer instrument.
2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1198	Cited by the court for the proposition regarding the evidentiary effect of a blank endorsement and proof of ownership.	Relied on by the court in concluding that production of the endorsed-in-blank note by the payee establishes a prima facie case of ownership.
Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat., 172	Cited by the court as supporting authority related to the evidentiary status of endorsed instruments.	Used by the court to corroborate the rule that the endorsed-in-blank note produced by the payee makes a prima facie case of ownership.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found the plaintiffs' material allegations sustained by the evidence. It reasoned that notes payable to the plaintiff or order and endorsed by her in blank, when produced by her and offered in evidence, establish a prima facie case of ownership equivalent to a note payable to bearer. The court further held that an additional endorsement by a Chicago bank to a Texas bank "for collection" did not disprove the plaintiff's ownership and in fact tended to corroborate it. The court also concluded that the indefinite description of the land appearing in the face of the note was cured by oral testimony. These conclusions resolved the assignment of error against the appellants.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

Holding: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Implications: The direct effect is affirmation of the trial judgment (including the plaintiffs' recovery on the notes and foreclosure of the vendor's lien as adjudicated below). The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond the case or purport to establish a new, distinct precedent beyond applying cited authorities to these facts.

Show full summary ...

L.C. GRANT ET AL. v. M.L. ENNIS ET AL.

Promissory Note — Blank Endorsement — Proof of Ownership. — Notes payable to plaintiff or order and endorsed by her in blank, when produced by her and offered in evidence, make a prima facie case of ownership, the same as if they were payable to bearer; and a further endorsement "for collection," made by a bank, does not disprove her ownership.

STEPHENS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

The material allegations of plaintiff's petition were sustained by the evidence, the suit being on two promissory notes, and to foreclose the vendor's lien. The notes were payable to plaintiff or order, and were endorsed by her in blank. When produced by her and offered in evidence, they made a prima facie case of ownership, the same as if they had been payable to bearer. The further endorsement on one of them by the Chicago bank to the Texas bank for collection, tended rather to corroborate than to disprove the ownership as alleged. Johnson v. Mitchell, 50 Tex. 212 [ 50 Tex. 212]; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1198; Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat., 172.

The indefinite description of the land in the face of the note was cured by oral testimony.

These conclusions dispose of the assignment of error and lead to an affirmance of the judgment.

Affirmed.