Hefner v. Vandolah
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 1872 WL 8076,62 Ill. 483,14 Am.Rep. 106 |
| Parties | MARSTON HEFNERv.DAVID VANDOLAH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. WILLIAMS & BURR, for the appellant.
Messrs. WELDON & BENJAMIN, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellee against appellant, upon a promissory note purporting to have been made by appellant and one Coman.
Appellant by plea, verified by affidavit, denied the making of the note, and it is not claimed that he did make it, but it is insisted that by certain declarations made by him, he is estopped from denying the making of the note.
The note sued on is as follows:
+----------------------+
¦$700.¦Sept. 25, 1869. ¦
+----------------------+
Six months after date, we promise to pay to the order of David Vandolah, seven hundred dollars, at twelve per cent interest, for value received.
W. COMAN.
MARSTON HEFNER.
The cause was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury, the issue found for the plaintiff and his damages assessed at the sum of seven hundred and ninety dollars and seventy-three cents, for which, after overruling a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered against the defendant, from which he prosecutes this appeal.
The only questions raised are, as to the sufficiency of the admissions and declarations of Hefner to render him liable upon the note, and as to the correctness of a judgment for the principal and interest of the note bearing, as it does, upon its face, the usurious rate of interest of twelve per cent.
The argument of appellant's counsel proceeds entirely upon the ground, that the acts and admissions of Hefner, in order to charge him with liability upon this note which he never executed, must be of such a character as to constitute an estoppel in pais, having the element of actual damage from delay occasioned by the acts of Hefner misleading Vandolah; and that the evidence comes short of making such a case. Without considering whether there may not be enough to support the judgment on that ground, we apprehend nothing more is necessary to be shown here, than that Hefner adopted and ratified his forged signature upon the note, to render him liable thereon.
It was in evidence, that soon after the time the note bears date, Vandolah showed it to Hefner, intimating a doubt as to its genuineness, and expressing a wish to know in regard to it; that Hefner examined the note expressing nothing definite, but intimating that the signature might be his, and saying he would let Vandolah know in a few days; after the lapse of a few days, Hefner told Vandolah that he had signed the note. There was abundant evidence to justify the court in finding that Hefner unequivocally and understandingly adopted and ratified the use of his name on this note.
If there had been an original assent on the part of the defendant to the placing of the signature of his name upon the note by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yusko v. Studt
... ... 879 ... But ... even that which amounts to a forgery may be ratified ... Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. D. C. 1; Hefner v ... Vandolah, 62 Ill. 483, 14 Am. Rep. 106; Goodspeed v ... Cutler, 75 Ill. 534; Paul v. Berry, 78 Ill ... 158; Murtaugh v. Colligan, 28 ... ...
-
Erler v. Creative Finance & Investments
...Co. v. First Indep. Bank of Vancouver, 15 Wash.App. 367, 550 P.2d 26 (1976) (an unauthorized signature may be ratified); Hefner v. Vandolah, 62 Ill. 483, 485 (1872) (a forged signature on a promissory note may be ratified); Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 141 Ariz. 80, 685 P.2d 145, 149 (App......
-
Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co Equitable Trust Co v. Fowler
...Harris v. Bressler, 119 Ill. 467, 472, 10 N. E. Rep. 188; Payne v. Newcomb, 100 Ill. 611, 623; Hamill v. Mason, 51 Ill. 489; Heffner v. Vandolah, 62 Ill. 483, 486; Saylor v. Daniels, 37 Ill. 331; Mitchell v. Lyman, 77 Ill. 525. Such is the uniform construction of the statute, which, in the ......
-
More v. Clymer
...Underwood's Stats. 746, sect. 6; McGill v. Ware, 4 Scam. 21; Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 Ill. 491; Hammill v. Mason, 51 Ill. 488; Hefner v. Vandolah, 62 Ill. 483. LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court. This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace on a promissory note for $1......