Overview
Case summary
This case involves an appeal by the Farmers’ & Traders’ National Bank of Covington, Kentucky, from a judgment in favor of Greene & Embrey for negligence in collecting three demand drafts. Greene & Embrey, livestock shippers, drew drafts on the New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company in June-July 1893 and deposited them with the bank for collection. The drafts were forwarded through correspondent banks but not presented until July 5, after the drawee had assigned its assets and refused payment. Evidence showed earlier presentation would have resulted in payment. At trial, evidence about all three drafts was admitted without objection; after arguments, the bank moved to strike evidence relating to the third draft (which had been satisfied) and for a directed verdict. The trial court denied both motions, and the jury found for plaintiffs. On appeal, the Circuit Court affirmed, holding: (1) the objection to evidence was untimely because the bank waited until after arguments to object, taking its chances on the evidence; and (2) sufficient evidence existed to submit the negligence issue to the jury. The court cited precedent on the timeliness rule for evidentiary objections.
Abstract
Livestock shippers drew demand drafts on a wool company and deposited them with a bank for collection, but the bank delayed presentment until after the drawee assigned assets and refused payment, despite evidence that earlier presentment would have succeeded. The bank objected to evidence on one satisfied draft only after trial arguments, and the trial court denied motions to strike and for directed verdict, allowing the jury to find negligence. The appellate court affirmed, holding the evidentiary objection untimely and sufficient evidence existed for jury submission.
Opinion of the court
opinionSEVERENS, District Judgejoined by BURTON, Circuit Judge, HAMMOND, J.
- Objections to evidence must be timely; cannot be raised after arguments to experiment with testimony
- Sufficient evidence existed to go to jury on negligence claim
- Only two exceptions were properly preserved for appeal
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Suit in Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky
- Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Procedural posture
- Refusal to strike evidence relating to draft of July 3
- Refusal to instruct jury to find for defendant
- Reference in jury charge to evidence about transmission time
- Rendition of judgment based on verdict
- Objection to evidence not raised until after arguments closed
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
abuse of discretion
Objection was untimely; party cannot wait to see if evidence is unfavorable before objecting
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Sufficient evidence existed to submit negligence issue to jury
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Trial court refused to strike evidence about July 3 draft — evidentiary · no error foundNot applicable as no error found · not applicable
- Trial court refused to direct verdict for defendant — procedural · no error foundNot applicable as no error found · not applicable
Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Refusal to strike evidence — abuse of discretion Trial court's evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion
- Refusal to direct verdict — de novo Sufficiency of evidence reviewed de novo to determine if jury question existed
Timeline
Greene & Embrey draw first draft for $3,993.72 on New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company and deposit it with defendant bank for collection
First of three drafts at issue; start of collection process
Greene & Embrey draw second draft for $4,097.69 and deposit it with defendant bank for collection
Second draft at issue
Greene & Embrey draw third draft for $658.31 and deposit it with defendant bank for collection
Third draft, later satisfied but evidence about it admitted at trial
First two drafts would have reached Hanover National Bank in New York by morning; evidence suggests they were not forwarded promptly
Potential point of negligence if drafts could have been presented earlier
All three drafts presented to drawee after 3 p.m.; payment refused due to drawee's assignment and closure
Loss occurred due to late presentation
Circuit Court of Appeals affirms judgment
Outcome: Affirmed
Final disposition of appeal
Trial before Judge Taft and jury; evidence about all three drafts admitted without objection during testimony
Foundation for appellate issues regarding evidence
Defendant's counsel moves to strike evidence relating to July 3 draft and for directed verdict; both motions denied
Outcome: Motions denied
Basis for preserved exceptions on appeal
Jury renders verdict for plaintiffs for $8,998.43
Outcome: Verdict for plaintiffs
Judgment appealed from
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
8 facts- Plaintiffs Greene & Embrey shipped livestock to New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company
- They drew three demand drafts for payment: June 30 ($3,993.72), July 1 ($4,097.69), July 3 ($658.31)
- Drafts deposited with defendant bank for collection
- Drafts forwarded via Hanover National Bank to First National Bank of Jersey City
- Drafts presented after 3 p.m. on July 5, when drawee refused payment due to assignment
- Evidence showed drafts would have been paid if presented earlier on July 3 or morning of July 5
- July 2 was Sunday, July 4 was holiday
- Draft of July 3 was later satisfied, leaving first two drafts in controversy
Disputed questions
- Whether bank was negligent in forwarding and presenting drafts
- Whether evidence about July 3 draft was relevant to negligence issue
Procedural history
4 steps- Suit filed by Greene & Embrey against bank for negligence in collection
- Trial before Judge Taft and jury in Covington
- Jury verdict for plaintiffs for $8,998.43 (total of first two drafts with interest)
- Defendant bank appealed
Evidence in the record
- Testimony about dates drafts were drawn and deposited
- Testimony about when drafts were presented and payment refused
- Witness testimony regarding collection process and timelines
- The three drafts themselves
- Evidence that drafts would have been paid if presented earlier
- Evidence about transmission times between banks
- Evidence type: Testimony and evidence relating to draft of July 3, 1893 · Challenge basis: Irrelevancy (draft was satisfied and not in controversy) · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Objection not raised when evidence introduced; motion to strike after arguments was untimely · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Jury
- Court referred to evidence about July 3 draft as relevant to diligence in forwarding first two drafts
Sentencing
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (4)
Related cases (4)
Statutes
- Not specified in text
Standards & doctrines
- Abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings
- De novo review for sufficiency of evidence
Legal principles applied
- Objections to evidence must be raised seasonably; party cannot experiment with testimony
- Sufficiency of evidence standard for denying directed verdict