Mcclure v. State Banking Co

• Decision Date: 15 June 1909
• Docket Number: (No. 1,624.)
• Citation: 65 S.E. 33,6 Ga.App. 303
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: McCLURE . v. STATE BANKING CO.

65 S.E. 33

6 Ga.App. 303

McCLURE .

v.STATE BANKING CO.

(No. 1, 624.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 15, 1909.

Bills and Notes (§ 489^*)—Actions—Forgery as Defense—Evidence.

Under a plea of non est factum, filed by the alleged maker of a note when sued thereon (it being contended that the forgery was committed by the payee), it is competent for the defendant, in support of the plea, to show that the payee is a person of general bad character, and especially that he has the general reputation of having been engaged in the business of committing forgeries.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Dec. Dig. § 489.*]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Hall County; J. C. Boone, Judge.

Action by the State Banking Company against J. M. McClure. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Geo. K. Looper and B. P. Gaillard, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

W. I. Hobbs and H. H. Perry, for defendant in error.

POWELL, J. The bank sued McClure on a note made payable to one Turner and indorsed by him to the bank. The defendant claimed that the note was a forgery, and that Turner had committed the forgery. He offered to prove, in support of this contention, that the general reputation of Turner was very bad and that he bore the general reputation of having been engaged in the business of committing forgeries. The court declined to allow the proof. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepts to the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

The rule prevailing in England and in most of the American states, that evidence of character is not usually received when offered for the purpose of throwing light on the probability of the doing of a certain act by the person whose character is in question, is not of force in this state. The contrary doctrine has been recognized in our jurisprudence from a very early date. Civ. Code 1895, § 5159, provides: "The general character of the parties, and especially their conduct in other transactions, are irrelevant matters, unless the nature of the action involves such character and renders necessary or proper the investigation of such conduct." The rule is especially applicable to, if not confined to, cases where a particular trait of the person whose conduct is under investigation is involved, or the alleged conduct is such that no person of good character would likely commit it. If only a particular trait is involved, the testimony should be limited accordingly. On the subject generally, see McNabb v. Lockhart, 18 Ga. 496(11), 512 (in which the party's character for honesty and general trustworthiness was involved); Planters' Bank v. Neel, 74 Ga. 576, 581 (in which a person's character as a man of close attention to business was involved); Falkner v. Behr, 75 Ga. 672, 676 (in which the general character of one of the parties was involved); Du Bose v. Du Bose, 75 Ga. 753 (in which the husband's character for decency Was involved in a divorce action); Columbus Ry. Co v. Christian, 97 Ga. 56, 25 S. E. 411 (in which the character of the defendant's agent as a dangerous man was involved); German American Life Ass'n v. Farley, 102 Ga. 720, 29 S. E. 615 (in which the plaintiff's character was involved on an issue as to whether he had committed fraud in procuring a policy of insurance). In all of these cases it was held that evidence as to the particular or general traits of character involved in the respective actions, was admissible. In Boat-right v. Porter, 32 Ga. 140, there is a negative pregnant that in an ejectment case the bad character of one of the grantees in the plaintiff's chain of title would have been relevant, if there had been any contention that he had practiced fraud in connection with the title. Frequently this kind of evidence has a distinct relevancy and a high degree of probative value, because it tends to make the question involved in the issue more or less probable in favor of one side of the case or the other. Even those courts and text-writers who support and lay down the proposition...