Lane v. Lockridge's Ex'x

• Decision Date: 04 January 1899
• Citation: 48 S.W. 975
• Parties: LANE v. LOCKRIDGE'S EX'X. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

48 S.W. 975

LANE v. LOCKRIDGE'S EX'X. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 4, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by D. S. Lockridge's executrix against Crit O. Lane to recover money paid by plaintiff as defendant's surety. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Tyler &amp Apperson, for appellant.

Courtland Chenault, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

This is an action by D. S. Lockridge to recover of appellant, Crit O Lane, the amount paid by Lockridge as her surety on a note to the Farmers' National Bank of Mt. Sterling. The note was signed by Crit and George Lane as principals, and D. S Lockridge as surety. But appellant did not sign the note in person; her husband, George Lane, placed her name to the note; and her defense is that he had no authority to do so. This is the second appeal of the case. On the former appeal this court reversed a judgment in favor of the appellee because the record showed no competent evidence of any liability on her part. See Lane v. Lockridge, 33 S.W. 730. On the return of the cause the case was tried again, and, a jury having found against her a second time, the appellant again appeals to this court.

The evidence presented in the record on this appeal is materially different from what it was when it was here last, and warranted the jury, in our judgment, to find as they did, if they believed the witnesses. There was evidence tending to show that appellant had given her husband, George Lane, a written power of attorney to transact all of her business and sign her name to any and all obligations in the transaction of such business. It is insisted that, admitting this evidence to be true, the husband was not authorized to sign her name to the note in controversy, because it was not given in the transaction of her business. The record is silent as to the consideration of the note, except that it was given in renewal of a former note; but there is evidence tending to show that, after the note was given, Lockridge, the surety, said to appellant that her husband had signed her name to the note, and that he had gone security for her on it, and wanted to know if it was all right. In answer to this she said: "Yes; it was all right. I know about the note. We got the benefit of it. I intend to see that it is paid. It was all right for George to sign my name to the note." If appellant made this statement...