Shoffstall v. McDaniel
Decision Date | 03 January 1893 |
Docket Number | 231 |
Citation | 25 A. 576,152 Pa. 598 |
Parties | Shaffstall v. McDaniel, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 4, 1892
Appeal, No. 231, Oct. T., 1891, by defendant, John H McDaniel, from judgment of C.P. Venango Co., on verdict for plaintiff, W. P. Shaffstall.
Assumpsit on agreement of suretyship.
On the trial before TAYLOR, P.J., it appeared that defendant had indorsed a judgment note under seal of which he was the payee and over his indorsement was written, it did not clearly appear by whose direction, the following: "I guarantee the within note's payment." The other facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Defendant's points were, among others, as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
Plaintiff's points were as follows:
[4]
[5]
[6]
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $139.13; defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were (1-6) instructions, quoting them.
The same thing must be said of the answer to the defendant's fourth point. The plaintiff might have complained of it, but the defendant cannot. We find nothing on this record that requires us to sustain this appeal, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Robert F. Glenn, for appellant. -- The language of defendant's indorsement makes this contract a guaranty: Bank v. Eyer, 58 Pa. 97; Mizner v. Spier, 96 Pa. 533; Ass'n v. Lichtenwalner, 100 Pa. 100; Zahm v. Bank, 103 Pa. 576; Hartman v. Bank, 103 Pa. 581. Diligence must be used against principal before resort to guarantee: Hoffman v. Bechtel, 52 Pa. 190. Parol evidence was inadmissible to vary terms of contract: Martin v. Berens, 67 Pa. 459; Coughenour v. Suhre, 71 Pa. 463; McClure v. R.R., 90 Pa. 269; Rowand v. Finney, 96 Pa. 192; Thorne v. Warfflein, 100 Pa. 519; Smith v. Ins. Co., 103 Pa. 177; Jackson v. Payne, 114 Pa. 67. As there was no allegation of fraud or mistake: Phillips v. Meily, 106 Pa. 536; North v. Williams, 120 Pa. 109; Brawdy v. Brawdy, 7 Pa. 157; Thomas v. Loose, 114 Pa. 35; Miller v. Smith, 33 Pa. 386.
John O. McCalmont, with him S. P. McCalmont and Bryan H. Osborn, for appellee. -- The contract was to be gathered from the understanding of the parties: Frevall v. Fitch, 5 Wharton, 325. No writing was necessary: Malone v. Keener, 44 Pa. 107.
It was an original undertaking on defendant's part and his liability was fixed as soon as the note became due and unpaid: McBeth v. Newlin, 15 W.N. 129; Riddle v. Thompson, 104 Pa. 330; Campbell v. Baker, 46 Pa. 243; Koch v. Melhorn, 25 Pa. 89; Roberts v. Riddle, 79 Pa. 468. The evidence was sufficient: Ferguson v. Rafferty, 128 Pa. 337. The evidence of discharge was not sufficient: Brubaker v. Okeson, 36 Pa. 519; Hagey v. Hill, 75 Pa. 108.
Before STERRETT, GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and HEYDRICK, JJ.
It is well settled that the payee of a non-negotiable instrument does not become an indorser by writing his name on the back of such instrument. Such act standing by itself imposes no liability on him whose name is so written: Leech v. Hill, 4 Watts, 448. But proof may be made to show the actual agreement of the parties under which the indorsement of the payee's name was made. If the agreement was that the payee should become responsible for the payment of the note by the maker either as surety or as guarantor, such agreement may be enforced if made upon a sufficient consideration. If, on the other hand, it was a simple undertaking to become liable for the debt of another, the agreement would be void under the statute of frauds: Wilson v. Martin, 74 Pa. 159.
In this case it appears that McDaniel held the note of A. L. Deming for one hundred dollars payable at fifteen months. The note was under seal and contained a confession of judgment with the usual waivers of stay of execution, right of inquisition and exemption. It was a non-negotiable note. McDaniel offered this note to the plaintiff in exchange for a horse, and was told that it would be accepted on condition that he McDaniel, would agree to become responsible for its payment. This he agreed to do, at the same time writing his name across the back of the note. The horse was then delivered, and the note with McDaniel's name upon the back of it passed into the hands of the plaintiff. Not long after the plaintiff offered the same note to Frasier, in exchange for another horse, who agreed to accept it on the same condition that he had imposed on McDaniel, viz., that the plaintiff would engage to see the note paid. This he did, and wrote his name also on the back of the note, and delivered it to Frasier, who wrote a guaranty of payment over his name. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miners State Bank v. Auksztokalnis, Admr. of Michael Rosenberg, Deceased
...Martin, 74 Pa. 159; Milton Natioanl Bank v. Beaver, 25 Pa.Super. 494; Continental Guaranty Corp. v. Hughes, 81 Pa.Super. 264; Shaffstall v. McDaniel, 152 Pa. 598. statement does not aver that there was any consideration to appellee's decedent. Nor does it directly aver that the maker of the......
-
Pattee Plow Co. v. Beard
...v. French (Maine) 30 Am. St. Rep. 416; Banks v. Spates (W. Va). 56 Am. Dec. 828; Machett v. Anderson (Ind.) 64 N.E. 229; Shaffstall v. McDaniel, 152 Pa. St. 598; Sutton v. Owen, 65 N. C. 123; Wilson v. Black, 6 Blackf. 509 (Ind.); Bean v. Briggs (Iowa) 63 Am. Dec. 464. B. B. Blakeney and J.......
-
Davis v. McColl
... ... under which the endorsement [179 Mo.App. 202] was made and ... that it was for a sufficient consideration. [Shaffstall ... v. McDaniel, 152 Pa. 598, 25 A. 576; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency ... of Law (2 Ed.) pp 479-80; Story v. Lamb, 52 Mich ... 525, 18 N.W. 248; Frevall v. Fitch, 5 Wharton ... ...
- Garcia v. Wall & Ochs, Inc.