OCR Text |
Show Grand Junction Bank Wins Judge Nod in Dist. Court In the District Court of San Juan County, a trial was: held last week moved to San Juan County from Grand under a change of venue. The jury trial, held before Judge Edward Sheya, was the First National Bank of Grand Junction, Plaintiff, vs. Ralph Osborne and Jim L. Hudson, Defendants. Upon good cause earlier, according accord-ing to Judge Sheya, a change of venue was taken from Grand to San Juan County. According to Judge Sheya, the evidence, in substance, was as follows: The First National Bans in Grand Junction had made a loan to former Moab banker Ralph Osborne June 3, 1969 in -the principal sum of $60,000. The bank made the loan in reliance on a written Loan Guaranty Agreement executed execut-ed by Defendant Jim L. Hudson. Hud-son. The loan was in default and the Defendant Osborne consented that a judgment could be entered against him for the full amount due and unpaid on the note. However, the Defendant Osborne did not pay the same, and hence the bank sued Mr. Hudson on his Guaranty Agreement. The Defendent, Jim L. Hudson, as a defense to the action, claimed that his signature sig-nature was obtained to the Loan Guaranty Agreement . by means of artifice, trick, sleight of hand or other fraudulent frau-dulent means. He testified that he was unable to recall signing the Loan Guaranty Agreement nor the circumstances circum-stances under which it was obtained. While not specific- ' ally denying that the agreement agree-ment contained his signature, Judge Sheya said, he insisted that his signature did not belong be-long on the Loan Guaranty Agreement. Upon the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by both sides, the plaintiff bank, through its attorneys, made a motion to Judge Sheya that he direct a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff bank and against ag-ainst Defendant Hudson, upon up-on the grounds that the evi-" evi-" dence conclusively showed that Defendant Hudson signed sign-ed the Loan Guaranty Agreement, Agree-ment, but that it failed to show that Defendant Hudson signed the same by reason of any fraud, and that if there was fraud in obtaining Defendant De-fendant Hudson's signature on the Loan Guaranty Agreement, Agree-ment, the bank had no knowledge know-ledge thereof and was not chargeable with knowledge of the same. Judge Sheya stated that there were three issues before be-fore the Court: (1) Did the Defendant Hurson sign the Loan Guaranty Agreement? (2) If so, was his signature? obtained by means of fraudulent fraud-ulent misrepresentations? (3) If Defendant Hudson's signature signa-ture was obtained by fraudulent fraud-ulent means, did the Plaintiff Bank have knowledge thereof there-of or knowledge of facts which put it on notice. Judge Sheya found from the e-idence as follows: Thai the signature of Defendant Hudson on the Loan Guaranty Agreement was genuine; that under the law fraud must be proved by clear and convincing convinc-ing evidence and that under the evidence in this case at best, fraud had to be inferred and could not be pointed .out precisely as the law requires; requir-es; that the evidence did not show that the Plaintiff C had knowledge of any frA if in fact Defendant Hud Stature was obtained! fraudulent misrepresentai on the part of Defendant borne. V The Court therefore dii" ed a verict in favor 0f Plaintiff Bank and Defendant Jim L. Hudsor reason of the latter's ejr tion of the Loan Guar?' Agreement and the failur1 1 the evidence to show tha:'r i signature was obtained means of fraudulent mi; 1 ' resentations, or if it had the evidence failed to that the Plaintiff Bank iirtl or was put on notice u fraud had been committed procure Defendant Hud:1".' signature. Jjvii |