Loveland v. Sigel-Campion Live Stock Co.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 10982. |
| Citation | 234 P. 168,77 Colo. 22 |
| Parties | LOVELAND v. SIGEL-CAMPION LIVE STOCK CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.
Proceedings for allowance of claim of the Sigel-Campion Live Stock Company against the estate of Francis W. Loveland. From a judgment in favor of claimant, Francis P. Loveland administrator, brings error.
Affirmed.
H. E. Luthe, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
H. A Hicks and A. T. Monson, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
The county court allowed the claim of the defendant in error against the estate of Francis W. Loveland; on appeal the district court did the same, and the administrator, Francis P. Loveland, brings error.
The claim was upon two promissory notes, signed by Francis P. Loveland and Bertha F. Detwiller, payable to the Sigel-Campion Live Stock Company and indorsed by that company, A. J. Campion, and Francis W. Loveland in that order. The notes were discounted by the company at the bank before F. W. Loveland's signature was on them. He afterwards went to the bank with his son, F. P. Loveland, and wrote his name on the back under that of Campion. This, prima facie, made him liable as an indorser after the claimant, but the presumption may be overcome by proof of agreement among the indorsers. C. L. § 3881.
The claimant says that its agents refused to give credit to the makers unless F. W. Loveland would sign with them and that his signature, though procured later, was given accordingly. If this is true, the judgment is right. In such case the act relates back to the inception of the original contract and is supported by the same consideration. Deposit Bank of Sulphur v. Peak, 110 Ky. 579, 62 S.W. 268, 96 Am.St.Rep. 466; Eitel v. Farr, 178 Mo.App. 367, 165 S.W. 1191; Mitchell v. Planters' Bank, 8 Humph. (27 Tenn.) 216; 8 C.J. 212, note 95. It seems not necessary that the defendant should have agreed to sign the note. It is enough that the original maker agreed to procure his signature and that he signed pursuant to such agreement. Pauly v. Murray, 110 Cal. 13, 42 P. 313; Winders v. Sperry, 96 Cal. 194, 31 P. 6; Moies v. Bird, 11 Mass. 436, 6 Am.Dec. 179. Compare McNaught v. McClaughry, 42 N.Y. 22, 1 Am.Rep. 487.
The plaintiff in error denies the plaintiff's statement and says that his father's signature was given pursuant to conversations and arrangements had after the discount and was without any new consideration. If so, the judgment would be wrong....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dittmar v. Frye, 27562.
... ... its delivery.' See, also, Loveland v. Sigel-Campion ... Co., 77 Colo. 22, 234 P. 168; Thomas v ... ...
-
Wagner v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 7896
...indemnity agreement was contemplated by the original undertaking and did not require new consideration. Cf. Loveland v. Sigel-Campion Live Stock Co., 77 Colo. 22, 234 P. 168, 169. The appellants contend that their liability under the indemnity agreement is limited to obligations which the s......
- Saben v. Saben