First Nat. Bank v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 20 November 1902
• Citation: 70 S.W. 807
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF GENEVA, OHIO, v. SHAW et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 807

70 S.W. 807

FIRST NAT. BANK OF GENEVA, OHIO, v. SHAW et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 20, 1902.

Appeal from chancery court, Rhea county; Thomas M. McConnell, Chancellor.

Bill by the First National Bank of Geneva, Ohio, against M. P. Shaw and others. From a decree for defendants, affirmed by the court of chancery appeals, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. C. M. Cunnyngham and Chambliss & Chambliss, for appellant. John C. Lock, for appellees.

McALISTER, J.

The only question presented for determination upon this record is the liability of the defendant Mrs. Stella V. Harley upon the following note: "$500.00. Geneva, Ohio, Dec. 3, 1892. Six months after date, value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to the First National Bank of Geneva, at their banking house, $500.00 interest 8% after maturity. Interest paid to maturity $17.50. D. H. Harley. Stella V. Harley. M. P. Shaw." Mrs. Harley, in her answer to the bill, avers that she was a married woman at the time said note was executed, and relies on the plea of coverture. She further avers that she and her husband, D. H. Harley, were residents of and living in the state of Tennessee at the time said note was executed, and had since continuously lived in this state, and she denies that the note was an Ohio contract.

The facts found by the court of chancery appeals are, viz.: First. The note sued on is a renewal note. The original note was made June 6, 1891. It was renewed December 5, 1891; renewed again January 4, 1892; and again December 3, 1892; the note last renewed or made being the one in suit. Second. Previous to the execution of the first note, and since 1889, Mrs. Harley was a married woman, living with her husband continuously in Tennessee. She owned no property in the state of Ohio. Third. The weight of the proof is, and we so find as a fact, that she signed all the notes in Tennessee; and it is practically conceded, and, if not conceded, we find the fact to be, that she signed the note sued on in Tennessee. Fourth. The original note was negotiated in Geneva, Ohio. The note sued on was received by the bank at Geneva, Ohio, through the mail, from Chattanooga, Tenn. Fifth. It is conceded that, under the statute law of Ohio, married women are liable in that state on their contracts.

It will be perceived that the legal question presented is whether a married woman, domiciled with her husband in Tennessee, is liable on a note signed by her in this state, but payable in the state of Ohio. The first question, of course, to be determined, is whether, upon the facts found, this is a Tennessee or an Ohio contract. Says Mr. Tiedeman, in his work on Commercial Paper (page 506): "It is not the law of the place where the contract was signed or executed, but the law of the place where the contract was consummated, by delivery or otherwise, which governs the construction of the contract made in one state, to be performed in another. Thus notes drawn in one state, and delivered and payable in another, for purchases made there, are governed by the law of the latter state, and are considered there made; for by delivery, only, the act of making is fully consummated." So it was said in Hall v. Cordell, 142 U. S. 116, 12 Sup. Ct. 154, 35 L. Ed. 956: "But where there is nothing to show that the parties had in view, in respect to the execution of the contract, any other law than the law of the place of performance, that law must determine the rights of the parties." Hubble v. Improvement Co., 95 Tenn. 585, 32 S. W. 965. In 2 Pars. Cont. 586, it is said: "So if one in New York orders goods from Boston, either by carrier whom he points out, or in the usual course of trade, this would be a completion of the making of the contract, and it would be a Boston contract, whether he gave no note, or a note payable in Boston, or one without express place of payment." We think it quite plain that the note in suit is an Ohio contract, notwithstanding it was signed by Mrs. Harley in Tennessee, it having been delivered and consummated in Ohio, and is payable in that state, as the place of performance. Armstrong v. Best, 112 N. C. 59, 17 S. E. 14, 25 L. R. A. 188, 34 Am....