Jones v. Primm
| Decision Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Citation | 6 Tex. 170 |
| Parties | JONES v. PRIMM. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Where two or more join in a note for the accommodation of one or more of them, leaving the name of the payee in blank, and the note passes to a bona fide holder for value before due, those who signed for the accommodation of the others cannot resist the payment of the note on the ground that they did not authorize any person to fill the blank for the purpose for which it had been used, or that it was without consideration passing to the defendants, or that they were but sureties, or that the note was obtained by fraud, &c.
Appeal from Austin. This suit was brought by the appellee upon a joint and several promissory note made by the appellant and two others and payable to the appellee.
The defense set up was that the defendant did not sign the note sued on or authorize any person to sign it for him, but that his signature was appended to a blank paper, and that he did not authorize any person to fill it up for the purpose for which it had been used; that it was without consideration passing to this defendant; that he was but surety upon the note, and that it was obtained by fraud, &c. The defendant propounded interrogatories to the plaintiff, touching the truth of these averments, and especially interrogating him as to his (plaintiff's) authority to fill up the blank over the defendant's signature.
From the answers of the plaintiff to the interrogatories it appeared that the paper was presented to him, with the signature in blank of the defendant and others, to be by him filled up to himself for a consideration passing to the other joint makers of the note, and that he filled it up accordingly. The facts were that the other makers of the note, G. W. & A. J. Reynolds, wished to purchase of the plaintiff provisions, which he, doubting their solvency, declined to let them have on their own sole responsibility; that he was assured by this defendant that they were perfectly solvent, and that he might safely trust them; that subsequently they presented to the plaintiff the blank paper mentioned, with their signatures, and also that of the defendant, to be filled up to the plaintiff in consideration of the purchases made by them, which he accordingly did fill up, and which was the note sued on.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
N. H. Munger, for appellant.
D. D. Atchison, for appellee.
The record presents but a single question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyser v. Hinkle
... ... (2 Allen) 236; Davis v. Lee, 26 Miss. 505, 59 Am ... Dec. 267; Weyerhauser v. Dun, 100 N.Y. 150; ... McArthur v. McLeod, 51 N. C. (6 Jones) 475; Bank ... v. Smith, 5 Ohio (5 Ham) 222; Jones v. Prumm, 6 ... Tex. 170; Geddes v. Blackmore, 132 Ind. 551, 32 N.E ... 567; Spitler v ... ...
-
Sugg v. Johnson
...& Andrews v. Gainesville National Bank, 62 Tex. 449; Marx v. Elsworth, 2 Posey, Unrep. Cas. 83; Neale v. Sears, 31 Tex. 105; Jones v. Prim, 6 Tex. 170; 21 C. J., pp. 1169-1176; Home Savings Bank v. Stewart, 78 Neb. 624, 110 N. W. 947; National Safe Deposit Savings & Trust Co. v. Hibbs, 229 ......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Peck
...of the instrument, but a completion of it on consent, which may be implied from the nature of the alteration. In the case of Jones v. Primm, 6 Tex. 170, the general principle in reference to the question was first announced in Texas as "The defendant intrusted his comakers of the note with ......
-
Connor v. Uvalde Nat. Bank
...introduced, do not make out such a case. Appellees cite the following cases in support of the action of the trial court, viz.: Jones v. Primm, 6 Tex. 170; Whittle v. Bank, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 616, 26 S. W. 1011; Riley v. Reifert, 32 S. W. 185; Garner v. McGowen, 27 Tex. 490; Harfst v. Bank, 56......