Baker v. Patton
| Decision Date | 11 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | 164. |
| Citation | 87 S.E. 659,144 Ga. 502 |
| Parties | BAKER v. PATTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An equitable petition alleging that the plaintiff, as a part of the consideration for the sale and conveyance of certain land, received from his vendee a promissory note made by a third person, payable to the vendee, that the vendee agreed to indorse the note so that he, as indorser, would be bound for the payment of the same, but that, instead of doing so he took it into his office and indorsed it "without recourse," and handed it to the plaintiff outside of the office, where it was too dark for him to read the indorsement, and that the plaintiff is an uneducated man with little experience in commercial life and the handling of negotiable instruments, and because of his want of education and experience he did not know the meaning of the words "without recourse," is demurrable; the plaintiff not being entitled, on the showing made in such petition, to the reformation of the instrument.
Action by J. D. Patton against Charles Jenkins and George Baker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Baker brings error. Reversed.
J. D Patton brought a petition against Charles Jenkins as maker and George Baker as indorser, upon a promissory note alleging in substance, so far as material to a decision of this case, that Jenkins was insolvent, owning no property of any character; that Baker, as a part of the consideration for a certain tract of land conveyed by petitioner to Baker, had delivered to petitioner the promissory note made by Jenkins, Baker agreeing at the time to indorse the note sued on "in such manner as to render himself legally liable for its payment as indorser"; that, after petitioner and Baker reached an agreement as to the indorsement, Baker took the note into his office for the purpose of indorsing it according to the terms of the agreement, "it being then very late in the afternoon and so dark it was impossible to read without the aid of a light, and presently returned said note to your petitioner with the statement that he had so indorsed it; that at the time of the delivery of the note to petitioner by Baker it was so dark that petitioner was unable to read the indorsement made on said note by said Baker, and he accepted the statement of the latter that he had indorsed the note according to the terms of the contract"; that petitioner took the note without making an inspection of the indorsement, relying entirely on the statement of Baker, and reposing confidence in him both as a friend and an honest man, put the instrument in his trunk and kept it there until maturity, and then presented it to Jenkins for payment, and, Jenkins refusing payment, payment was demanded of Baker, and it was then that petitioner discovered the true character of the indorsement "without recourse"; that he "is an uneducated man, with little experience in commercial life and the handling of negotiable instruments, and because of his want of education and experience did not know the meaning of the words 'without recourse,' indorsed on said note by said Baker, and did not know until the maturity of the note that under the indorsement Baker was not liable for its payment in the event of the default of Jenkins, having relied absolutely upon the representation of Baker"; that petitioner would not have consummated the exchange, but for the fact that he relied upon the promise of Baker to indorse the note, and the agreement of Baker to indorse the note was the real consideration causing him to part with his property; and that Baker's indorsing the note "without recourse" was a scheme, fraud, and artifice whereby he imposed upon the ignorance of petitioner. He prayed that the indorsement...
To continue reading
Request your trial