Porter v. Huie

• Decision Date: 28 March 1910
• Citation: 126 S.W. 1069
• Parties: PORTER et al. v. HUIE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

126 S.W. 1069

PORTER et al. v. HUIE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 28, 1910.

Appeal from Clark Chancery Court; Jas. D. Shaver, Chancellor.

Action by R. H. Porter and others, executors, against R. W. Huie. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

J. H. Crawford and T. D. Crawford, for appellants. Callaway & Huie, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

On the 28th day of July, 1888, the Arkadelphia Cotton Mills executed to J. A. Hardage a promissory note as follows:

                "$1,000.     Arkadelphia, July 28, 1888
                

"On July 28, 1889, we promise to pay to the order of J. A. Hardage one thousand dollars at 10 per cent. interest from date until paid. Value received.

                             "Arkadelphia Cotton Mills
                                 "By S. R. McNutt, President."
                

Before the delivery and acceptance of it, the note was signed on the back of it by S. R. McNutt, J. C. Saunders, and R. W. Huie & Co. The Arkadelphia Cotton Mills paid at different times several amounts, aggregating $300. McNutt paid in his life many sums, amounting in the aggregate to $960. He died, and his executors paid $1,391.35, the balance due thereon. His executors brought suit in equity against R. W. Huie, a member of the firm of R. W. Huie & Co., who was the last to sign the note on the back thereof, to recover $1,175.67, one-half of the amounts paid thereon by McNutt in his lifetime and by his executors. The trial court dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and plaintiffs appealed.

In Killian v. Ashley, 24 Ark. 511, 91 Am. Dec. 519, the court held that, "where a third party endorses a note in blank at the time it is executed, he is bound as security as fully as if he had written his name on the face under that of the makers." And in Nathan v. Sloan, 34 Ark. 524, this court held that "parties who indorse their names in blank upon an obligation to another at the time it is executed by the maker, and for the same consideration, are joint makers with him, and not guarantors." To the same effect it held in Heise v. Bumpass, 40 Ark. 546; Jones v. Bank of Pine Bluff, 80 Ark. 285, 96 S. W. 1060; Lake v. Little Rock Trust Co., 77 Ark. 53, 90 S. W. 847, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1199. In all these cases the court was considering the liability of the parties sued to the holder of the notes, and in none of them did it consider the relation of two or more of the indorsers on notes like the one under consideration to each other. In such cases it is held by the great weight of authorities: ...