Hansford v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 04 May 1896
• Citation: 27 S.E. 706,99 Ga. 376
• Parties: HANSFORD v. FREEMAN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

27 S.E. 706

99 Ga. 376

HANSFORD v. FREEMAN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 4, 1896

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a promissory note was signed and delivered by the maker to the payee's agent upon an express understanding and agreement that the latter was not to deliver the note to his principal except upon the happening of a certain event, but was to hold the note "for both parties" until it could be ascertained whether or not this event would happen and where in fact it did not happen at all, and the agent, in violation of the understanding and agreement above mentioned delivered the note to his principal, such delivery was not effective, or binding upon the maker. Under these circumstances the agent was, as to the matter of delivery the mutual agent of both the other parties.

2. While mere ignorance of the law will not, ordinarily, relieve a party from the performance of his written contract where he signs and delivers the same with full knowledge of all the facts, yet where, on account of misplaced confidence, and because of artifice and deception fraudulently practiced upon him by the opposite party, a vital and material part of the contract was omitted from the writing, which purported to express the whole contract, and the party overreached was fraudulently led to believe that the contract as written was in effect the same as if the omitted portion had been inserted, equity will decree a reformation.

3. Accordingly, where an action upon such contract is brought in the superior court, the defendant may set up the facts above recited as a defense, and upon proof of the same may obtain appropriate relief.

4. The court erred in sustaining the plaintiff's demurrer to so much of the defendant's plea as alleged in his defense the matters referred to in the preceding notes.

Error from superior court, Oglethorpe county; Seaborn Reese, Judge.

Action by Annie N. Freeman against Benjamin Hansford. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Hamilton McWhorter, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. L. Brown and W. M. Howard, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J.

1. The delivery of a promissory note to the payee, or one authorized by law to receive it for him, is essential to its binding force as an obligation to pay upon the part of the maker. By delivery is to be understood not the mere manual tradition of the paper by the maker to another, but such a delivery accompanied with a present purpose to invest the payee with the right, upon its maturity, to demand its payment. The plea, therefore, in the present case, which set up a nondelivery of the paper sued upon was a good defense to this action. It alleged that the agent of the payee received it with the...