Evening Republican, Volume 17, Number 113, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 May 1913 — WOULD NOT WORK WITH SUPREME COURT [ARTICLE]

WOULD NOT WORK WITH SUPREME COURT

Marion I. Adams Won Suit Brought by Union Trust Co., on Notes ... Given to W. R. Scudder.

’The supreme court of Indiana has sustained the Jasper circuit court in finding for Marion I. Adams, the defendant, in an action brought by the Union Trust Co., of South Bend, to collect a note for $250, which Mr. Adams had given to W. R. Scudder, who some two years ago was trying to start the Hamilton Life Insurance Co. here. Scudder put up quite a bluff here about bringing the Hamilton Life Insurance Co. here from South Bend and succeeded in interesting a few locally. He had the second floor of the Roth building prepared as the company’s headquarters. Local supporters, however, were slow about putting up money and Scudder finally left town and for some time worked in Indianapolis. He had purchased an automobile here of J. W. Marlatt and this he mortgaged to E. L. Hollingsworth and it was stored at the Willis garage for some time. Later he sold the car to Dr. Foxworthy, of Indianapolis, subject to the mortgage and storage expense. Foxworthy came here and settled for the car and took it to Indian? apolis and a few days later Scudder saw the car at the entrance of Foxworthy’s office and drove it away. He later sent a note to Foxworthy saying that he had sold it too cheap and decided to drive it until the difference was made up. At last accounts ’Scudder was still missing. The car is doubtless junk by this time.

That is a variation to some extent from the subject of this article, but it shows the sort of a scrub that Scudder was. He sold some stock in the Hamilton company in Rensselaer, just how much, no one seems to know. But Marion I. Adams gave a note for $250 for his purchase. Scudder sold the note right away to the Union/Trust Co., of South Bend, a presumed innocent purchaser. That company sued and Adams won the judgment. The plaintiff appealed and now the supreme court has sustained the lower court. Scudder had never delivered the stock and this fact was material in procuring the judgment for Adams. The plaintiffs, also, had failed to set oiit in their complaint that they had paid anything for the note. There should be some law that would give defrauded persons a better chance than they now have when their notes are sold. Of course, a person should be mighty careful how he passes out his notes, but there are many cases where fraud is clearly shown on the part of the person taking the note and he usually disposes of it at a big discount, and his anxiety is enough to create suspicion.

A case of this kind was tried in Jasper county this term of court. Roy Donnelly was the defendant. He bought a lot of so-called stock food and gave a note for it. The seller had misrepresented the curative power of the food and Roy soon found that he had an “elephant on his hands.” Nothing, however, could be done, as the sellers of the stock powder had disposed of his note to an “innocent” purchaser. A judgment was given against Roy, who was a victim of a fraud that should have sent some one to the penitentiary.

We are mighty glad that Mr. Adams wop his suit and it is to be hoped that people in Jasper county will hereafter be mighty careful and not give notes until they are reasonably sure that they are getting value received for them.