Bonner v. Anelson

• Decision Date: 31 July 1876
• Citation: 57 Ga. 433
• Parties: Richard W. Bonner, guardian, plaintiff in error. v. John A.Nelson, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

57 Ga. 433

Richard W. Bonner, guardian, plaintiff in error. v. John A.Nelson, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1876.)

*Principal and security. Negotiable instruments. Presumptions. Confederate money. Before Judge Hill. Twiggs Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1875.

Bonner, as guardian, brought complaint against Woodall, as principal, and Nelson, as security, on a note dated February 18th, 1863, for $2,610 37, payable to plaintiff or bearer, and due on January 1st, 1864. Woodall made no defense. Nelson pleaded, in substance, as follows:

1st. Three or four years prior to the making of the instrument sued on, this defendant and one Herbert Reynolds, signed a note as co-securities for Woodall for about $2,000 00, on which the latter borrowed money from the plaintiff. After this note had been due for about three years, Reynolds, without defendant's knowledge, demanded of plaintiff that his name be taken therefrom, that is, that the plaintiff must take steps to collect it or relieve him. Plaintiff was reluctant to sue, so Reynolds had to make his demand a second or third time. Plaintiff then said to Woodall that he wanted to renew the note, giving as a reason that be wished the interest to be bearing interest for his ward, but not telling him that Reynolds had made the aforesaid demand. Thereupon plaintiff wrote the note sued on and gave it to Woodall to obtain his securities' names, requesting him to attend to it by next day. Woodall brought this obligation to defendant's house and asked for defendant's name, saying, either voluntarily or on being questioned by defendant, that he wished to renew the old note. Defendant then readily signed, supposing and expecting that the same sureties were to be upon it as were upon the old note. Woodall went from defendant direct to plaintiff and delivered to him the note, saying that he had not obtained any surety but defendant. Whereupon plaintiff replied that defendant's name made it good enough, and surrendered the old note which was destroyed. Defendant did not ascertain that Reynold's name was not on the note until about two years afterwards, when it was shown him by plaintiff\'s attorney for collection.

*2d. About the 22d of March, 1864, the following transaction took place between plaintiff and Woodall, without the knowledge or consent of defendant: Woodall tendered to plaintiff, in the then currency of the country, nearly the full amount of the debt, proposing to get the balance in a short time. Plaintiff made some remark about its being unpopular to refuse Confederate money, and asked Woodall not to press it on him. The latter replied, "Captain, I have the money now, and you might want it some time when I did not have it." To which plaintiff answered, "No, I will not call upon you until after the war." Woodall made some remark conjecturing that he might then be broke. Plaintiff did carry out this promise, and did not call for the money until some time after the war, when Woodall had become insolvent, though solvent when the indulgence was given.

On demurrer to these pleas, the first was stricken and the second sustained. The evidence for the defendants made substantially the case presented by the second plea. Woodall testified that at the time of tendering the Confederate money he also offered to let plaintiff have thirteen bales of cotton, to be applied to the note; that he, also, at another time, offered him a house; that these offers were declined.

The plaintiff admitted that Woodall, some time in 1864, did offer to pay a part of the note in Codfederate money, saying that be had a check for about $2,000 00, and a part in money, and could get the balance, though he showed neither check nor money. He declined to receive the money, saying the note did not belong to him, and that if it did he would take it; that he did not think it fair to his ward, who was absent in the army, but that if he saw any chance to make a beneficial investment, he would call on Woodall for the money. Admitted also the offer of the cotton, and of a house, both of which he declined. Woodall also stated that if plaintiff waited until the war was over that he and all of us might be broke; to which plaintiff replied, that if all were then broke, then all would go up together, and nothing could be made *out of anybody. He denied the agreement to indulge until after the war.

The court, among other things, charged the jury, in substance, that if they found the facts to be as stated in the second plea, the defendant, Nelson,...