Hartford Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Credenza

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: BANKS, Justice.
• Citation: 119 Conn. 368,177 A. 132
• Parties: HARTFORD NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. v. CREDENZA et al.
• Decision Date: 21 January 1935

177 A. 132

119 Conn. 368

HARTFORD NAT. BANK & TRUST CO.
v.
CREDENZA et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 21, 1935

Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Edwin M. Ryan, Judge.

Action by the Hartford National Bank & Trust Company, as holder of a promissory note, against Louis Credenza, the maker, and the indorser, which was tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff against both defendants, and named defendant appeals.

No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, BANKS, AVERY, and JENNINGS, JJ.

William M. Harney and Norman Yellin, both of Hartford, for appellant Credenza.

Willis G. Parsons, of Hartford, for appellee.

[119 Conn. 369] BANKS, Justice.

This is an action by the payee of a promissory note for $5,000, dated February 3, 1931, and payable four months after date, against the maker, Credenza, and an indorser before delivery, Champ. The trial court rendered judgment against both defendants, and the defendant Credenza alone appealed. The defense of the appellant is that his execution of the note, which he signed for the accommodation of the indorser, Champ, was procured by the misrepresentations of the latter, and [177 A. 133] that the plaintiff did not take the paper in good faith and without notice of its infirmities, and was not, therefore, a holder in due course.

The following facts appear from the finding, which is not subject to any material corrections. On February 3, 1931, the defendant Champ, who was then a depositor in the plaintiff bank, sought from it a loan of $5,000, and was given a blank form of note upon which an officer of the bank wrote in the date, maturity date, name of the payee, and the amount of the note. Champ's wife took this paper to Credenza, who was Champ's step-father and an illiterate Italian sixty years of age and in ill health, told him that she and her husband wanted to get a little money from the bank, that the paper was a note which her husband had sent over for him to sign, and that an officer of the bank would also sign it. Credenza, who was unable to read or write, affixed his mark to the note relying upon these representations, and Mrs. Champ signed her name as a witness to the mark. On March 9, 1931, Champ, having indorsed the note, presented it at the bank which discounted it, crediting his account with the amount of the note less discount fees. Prior to the maturity date of the note Champ checked out the entire amount of the balance so credited to his account. At the time the note was discounted an [119 Conn. 370] officer of the bank learned upon inquiry...