Geddes v. Blackmore
| Decision Date | 15 November 1892 |
| Docket Number | 15,962 |
| Parties | Geddes et al. v. Blackmore |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Greene Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
W. W Moffett and C. E. Green, for appellants.
The appellee, Charles Blackmore, brought this action against the appellant, Daniel T. Geddes, and William Winder, on a promissory note, dated August 15th, 1884, due in one day after date, payable to said Charles Blackmore, for $ 1,000 with eight per cent. interest, and signed by said Daniel T Geddes and William Winder. Geddes was defaulted, and Winder answered in three paragraphs: 1st. A general denial. 3d. A general plea of non est factum, and, 3d. Setting up an alteration of the note.
There was a trial by jury and a special verdict returned. The facts found by the jury in their special verdict show that the appellant William Winder signed a printed blank form of promissory note. The date of the note, date of maturity, amount and name of payee all being blank, and intrusted it to Geddes, with verbal instructions to purchase hogs for a firm composed of said William Winder and Asbury Winder, and to fill the blanks in the note and deliver the same to the person from whom he purchased hogs, filling the dates. The amount and name of the payee were to be filled by inserting the amount to be paid for the hogs, and the name of the person from whom the hogs were purchased. Geddes violated his instructions and used the note to borrow $ 1,000 of appellee, Blackmore, filling the blank amount at $ 1,000 and the name of Blackmore as payee. He filled the other blanks, and signed the note himself as one of the payors, delivered the same to Blackmore, and received from him $ 1,000. Geddes purchased no hogs of Blackmore, and did not use any of the money for the purchase of any hogs for said William Winder or the firm of Winder & Winder, and neither Winder & Winder nor William Winder received any of the money; that the use made of the note was unauthorized by Winder and was without his knowledge and contrary to his instructions. Both the appellee and the appellant Winder moved for judgment on the special verdict, and the court overruled the motion of Winder and sustained the motion of the appellee, Blackmore, and rendered judgment in his favor for the amount found due on the note.
These rulings of the court on the motions for judgment are assigned as errors.
The facts found show that Geddes violated the confidence reposed in him by appellant Winder. He disobeyed his instructions, and used the note for another purpose than that for which it was intended, but notwithstanding such violation of confidence the appellant is liable on the note.
In Roberts v. Adams, 8 Port. 297 (33 Am. Dec 291), the court says: "No rule can be better settled, than the one which determines that he who signs his name to a blank piece of paper, with intent to be filled up as a note or endorsement, will be liable, although the person intrusted therewith shall violate the confidence reposed in him, by filling it up with another sum, or using it for another purpose than the one intended," and many authorities are cited in support of this doctrine. The same rule is adhered to by this court. In Wilson v. Kinsey, 49 Ind. 35, it was held that where a party signed a promissory note in blank, and intrusted it to another to discount the note at bank, a blank being left for the name of the payee, and the note was negotiated to a third party, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial