Owings v. Baker

• Decision Date: 03 June 1880
• Citation: 54 Md. 82
• Parties: DAVID OWINGS v. PRUDENCE S. O. BAKER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

54 Md. 82

DAVID OWINGS v. PRUDENCE S. O. BAKER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 3, 1880

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

The nature of the case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Exception.--The case being tried before the Court without the intervention of a jury, the plaintiff prayed the Court to rule as follows:

1. If the Court, sitting as a jury, shall find that the plaintiff was applied to by Rowland R. Hayward for a loan of money, and that plaintiff declined to make the loan without security and that the promissory note, offered in evidence, was then presented to plaintiff, drawn payable to his order, with the name of Rowland R. Hayward signed by him at the foot, and the name of Prudence S. O. Baker, signed by her on the back of the note, and that the plaintiff then loaned the sum of money mentioned therein, on the faith and security of said note then the said Prudence S. O. Baker was an original promisor or co-maker of said note, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover against her.

2. If the Court shall find that plaintiff was applied to by Rowland R. Hayward for a loan of money, and that plaintiff declined to make the loan without security, and that said Hayward then offered Prudence S. O. Baker, as security, and the promissory note offered in evidence was then executed and presented to the plaintiff, and that he thereupon loaned the sum of money mentioned therein, on the faith of the security of the said Prudence S. O. Baker, then she became an original promisor, or co-maker of said note, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover against her, unless the Court shall be of opinion, that the intention of all the parties was, that said Prudence S. O. Baker should only be liable, as endorser; and plaintiff prays further instruction, that such liabilities on the part of Prudence S. O. Baker, as endorser, could only be maintained by the plaintiff becoming first endorser himself, and making her second endorser.

The defendant, Prudence S. O. Baker, prayed the Court to rule as follows:

That if the Court shall believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff told the witness and defendant, Hayward, that he would lend him (Hayward) two hundred dollars, provided Mrs. Baker, the other defendant, would sign the face of the note offered in evidence in this cause; and shall further believe that said witness and defendant, Hayward, told the plaintiff he would not ask Mrs. Baker to sign the face of the note; and if the Court shall further believe that the plaintiff told the witness and defendant, Hayward, that he (the plaintiff) would let (Hayward) have the money, provided Mrs. Baker endorsed said note; and if the Court shall further believe, that this information or message was communicated to the defendant, Mrs. Baker; and if the Court shall further believe, that the note was signed and endorsed as now shown to the Court, with that agreement and understanding, then the promise and undertaking of the defendant, Mrs. Baker, was not an original but a collateral promise and undertaking, and that the defendant, Mrs. Baker, is not responsible as a joint maker, and the plaintiff cannot recover in this cause against Mrs. Baker under the pleadings and proof offered to the Court, unless the Court shall find that Mrs. Baker was notified by protest or informed in some way, within a reasonable time of the maturity of said note, that it was not paid by the witness and defendant Hayward; and the defendant asks the Court to find that no proof has been offered in this case of such notice of protest or non-payment of said note.

The Court ...