Warren, &C. v. Fant's Trustee
| Decision Date | 13 December 1879 |
| Citation | 79 Ky. 1 |
| Parties | Warren, &c., v. Fant's trustee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
The reply admitted that the words on the margin of the obligation sued upon were written at the suggestion of the appellee, in the absence of the sureties, and by implication at least, without their knowledge or consent.
Those words, if taken to be a part of the note, increased the liability of the sureties, and released them, unless they are bound by subsequent ratification or promise to pay.
The words added were written on the face of the paper which contained the obligation, and above the signatures of the obligors; they were put there at the instance of the obligee to secure a benefit that would not have been secured without them; the appellee insisted that the sureties were bound by them, refused to accept what he would have been entitled to without them, and in his original petition declared on them as a part of the writing.
This is sufficient to show that the appellee regarded them as a part of the obligation, and that they are to be so regarded is abundantly established by authority. (Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, sec. 149, et seq.)
That the words in the margin were written after the obligation was delivered being admitted, and the jury having found that Warren promised to pay the debt after he was informed that the addition had been made, the question for decision is, whether such promise renders him liable on the obligation as if the addition had been made before he signed, or afterward with his consent.
He was merely a surety, and we think it clear that no subsequent ratification of the addition, or promise to pay the debt, can bind him, unless made upon some new consideration.
That he was not bound during the time that elapsed between the making of the alteration and the ratification or promise, all will concede. The alteration released him, and thereafter, before he ratified it or promised to pay the debt, he was no more bound than if he had never signed the obligation at all. (Blakey v. Johnson, 13 Bush, 197.)
That one who never signed the paper, or whose name was signed without authority or claim of authority to do so — whose name was simply forged — cannot be bound by a subsequent promise to pay the debt or ratification of the signing of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial