Chandler v. Westfall
| Decision Date | 31 October 1867 |
| Citation | 30 Tex. 475 |
| Parties | FREDERICK W. CHANDLER v. W. H. WESTFALL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Where a party writes his name upon a negotiable paper in blank, he is held responsible as guarantor, and he gives to the holder an implied power to write over his name the most absolute terms of guaranty.
Where the holder treats him as indorser, and fixes the date of his indorsement in his petition, he is held to his pleading.
To hold an indorser, who is stated to have indorsed on the 1st of January, 1863, suit must have been brought to the first, or, at most, to the second term of the district court thereafter, and cause must have been shown for not bringing it to the first term. Pas. Dig. art. 220, notes 283, 290.
And the same rule applies, whether the note was indorsed before or after maturity.
The 6th section of the 11th ordinance of the convention of 1866 (Pas. Dig. art. 4631 a) does not control article 220 of Pas. Dig., as to fixing the liabilities of indorsers of negotiable security.
APPEAL from Travis. The case was tried before Hon. JOHN IRELAND, one of the district judges.
Westfall sued George Flournoy and Frederick W. Chandler upon a promissory note, dated 28th of February, 1861, and due one day after date, whereby Flournoy promised to pay John T. Miller or bearer $125.
The petition averred that, on the 1st of January, 1863, Chandler, for a valuable consideration, sold, transferred, indorsed, and conveyed said note to the plaintiff, writing his name on the back thereof in blank, whereby the defendants became indebted to the plaintiffs for the amount of the note.
Chandler accepted service on the 6th of October, 1865. Flournoy was duly served by publication and also by personal service. Chandler filed a general demurrer, and also denied that he ever sold the note, etc.; that ever the plaintiff got possession of it from him.
The petition also averred, that if he indorsed it, he indorsed it on the day of the date of the note. The defendant demurred to this answer, and also replied, that civil suits were suspended from the 1st of February, 1861, to the 1st of September, 1866. Chandler's demurrer was overruled, and judgment was rendered against both of the defendants. Chandler only appealed.
The statement of facts shows that the note with Chandler's indorsement, “F. W. Chandler,” was read to the jury. Chandler propounded interrogatories to the plaintiff. He admitted that he did not purchase the note from Chandler, and stated that he supposed when he bought it that Chandler had put his name on the back of it to make himself an indorser. The question was as to the character of Chandler's liability.
The reporter cannot but observe that the court overlooked, or did not deem it worth while to notice, the stay laws passed during the war, which declared, that it should not be necessary during the war to bring suit against the acceptor of such bill of exchange as indorser and maker of a promissory note, in order to fix the liability of any drawer or indorser of such bill or note. Pas. Dig. arts. 5130, 5144.William M. Walton, for appellant, argued that Chandler was not responsible as an indorser, and that there were no such averments as to make him responsible as a guarantor. He cited Stockman v. Riley, 2 McCord (S. C.), 398, and Berry v. Robinson, 9 Johns. 121, to show that an indorser, after maturity, was entitled to have all the diligence used against the maker as if indorsed before maturity.
M. H. Bowers, for appellee, suggested delay.
This suit was brought by appellee to the fall term of the district court, 1865, on the following promissory note:
“[$125.] One day after date I promise to pay John T. Miller, or bearer, one hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty cents, with ten per cent. interest until paid, for value received.
GEORGE FLOURNOY.”
Which is indorsed in blank on the back by “F. W. Chandler.”
Judgment was rendered in the court below against both defendants, from which Chandler alone appeals.
We have not been furnished with a brief or oral argument by the appellee. It is submitted on his part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clymer v. Terry
...terms of guaranty, this did not authorize him to make a new contract. He could only write thereon a contract of guaranty. Chandler v. Westfall, 30 Tex. 475; Horton v. Manning, 37 Tex. 23. A "guaranty" is a promise to answer for the payment of some debt, or the performance of some duty, in c......
- Ake v. State