Porter v. White

• Decision Date: 03 March 1874
• Citation: 39 Md. 613
• Parties: GEORGE U. PORTER v. MILES WHITE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

39 Md. 613

GEORGE U. PORTER v. MILES WHITE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 3, 1874

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

The first and second exceptions are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court; the third is as follows:

Third Exception.--The defendant, Porter, offered the following prayers:

1. If the jury, from the evidence, believe that at the times the respective promissory notes offered in evidence were discounted by the plaintiff, the defendants were engaged in the printing business, and that the plaintiff was aware of that fact; and shall further find that the notes upon which suit is brought were signed in the name of J. B. Rose & Co. by J. B. Rose, one of the defendants, without the knowledge and privity of his then partner, George U. Porter; and that said notes were loaned or passed by said J. B. Rose, to J. W Butler, without the knowledge or privity of said George U Porter, and were not given or loaned to him for or on account of any transaction or claim with or against the firm of J. B. Rose & Co., and shall further find that said plaintiff knew that the business of J. W. Butler & Co. was the making and selling of house building materials, and had no connection with the printing business of J. B. Rose & Co., and that the said plaintiff discounted said notes for J. W. Butler, and paid the proceeds thereof to said J. W. Butler; and shall further find that said plaintiff was in the frequent habit of discounting promissory notes for said J. W. Butler, and that in the course of conversations at times between plaintiff and said J. W. Butler, the question of borrowing notes by said J.

W. Butler for discount was spoken of, but that witness cannot recall any such conversation with plaintiff in regard to the notes on which suit is brought in this case, then the jury are at liberty to infer that said plaintiff had knowledge that the notes upon which this suit is brought were not given by said defendants for any claim in the line of their business, and in so far as the defendant, George U. Porter, is involved, their verdict may be for said defendant.

2. If the jury, from the evidence, believe that the firm of J. B. Rose & Co. consisted of the defendants, and that the business of said firm was printing, and that the notes offered in evidence were not issued or passed by either of the partners of said firm for any indebtedness or claim due by the firm of John B. Rose & Co., but that the name of said J. B. Rose & Co. was signed to and on said notes by J. B. Rose without the knowledge of his co-partner, George U. Porter, and that no entry of said transaction was made on the partnership books of said J. B. Rose & Co., and that said George U. Porter never assented to the making of said notes, and that said notes, when so signed by said J. B. Rose, were passed to J. W. Butler by said J. B. Rose, without the knowledge and consent of said George U. Porter, then they may find for the defendant, George U. Porter, on the issue joined.

3. If the jury, from the evidence, believe that the plaintiff discounted the notes upon which suit is brought in this case, for J. W. Butler, and that at the time of discounting the same the plaintiff had knowledge that said notes were borrowed from said defendants, and were without consideration, so far as defendants are concerned, then said plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

The plaintiff excepted to each and all of the foregoing prayers upon the ground, (among other exceptions and objections,) that there was an insufficiency of evidence in the case to support them.

The Court, (DOBBIN, J.,) refused to grant the said prayers, on the ground, (among other objections thereto,) that there was no evidence in the case sufficient to support them. The defendant Porter, excepted, and took this appeal, the verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, GRASON, MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.

Wm. A. Stewart, for the appellant.

Wm. F. Frick, for the appellee.

BARTOL C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was instituted by the appellee against the appellant and John B. Rose, partners doing business in the name of J. B. Rose & Co. The appellee sued as endorsee for value of three promissory notes; one dated June 28th, 1871, drawn by A. J. S. Smith, at four months, and endorsed by J. W. Butler & Co., J. B. Rose & Co., and Perrigo & Kohl. One dated July 28th, 1871, drawn by J. B. Rose & Co., at four months, endorsed by J. W. Butler & Co., D. C. Morgan and Eastman & Rogers; and one dated September 2nd, 1871, drawn by J. B. Rose & Co., at four months, and endorsed by J. W. Butler & Co., Eastman & Rogers, Perrigo & Kohl, and D. C. Morgan.

The defence...