Strickland v. Vance

• Decision Date: 26 October 1896
• Parties: STRICKLAND v. VANCE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

27 S.E. 152

99 Ga. 531

STRICKLAND

v.VANCE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 26, 1896.

Note of Husband and Wife—Notice to Pater —Knowledge of Agent.

1. One who takes a promissory note payable to himself, signed by a man and his wife, apparently as joint principals, is in law chargeable with notice of such facts concerning the real consideration of the paper and of the wife's true relation thereto as are known to another, who, in behalf of the payee, and at his instance and request, conducts the negotiations loading to the execution and delivery of the note to the latter;and if, in fact, the wife signed the note as surety for the husband, it was, so far as the rights of such payee were concerned, void as to her, and she could maintain against him an action for the recovery of money or property belonging to her separate estate with which she had parted in a settlement with him of the note.

2. No material error of law was committed on the trial, and the evidence warranted the verdict.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Gordon county; T. W. Milner, Judge.

Action by Nancy L. Vance against Robert L. Strickland. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

W. H. Dabney and T. W. Skelly, for plaintiff in error.

McCutchen & Shumate, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN, J. In a transaction between Vance and his wife on the one side and Anderson on the other, the particulars of which are immaterial, the Vances executed and delivered to Anderson their negotiable promissory note, signed as joint makers, and not disclosing the fact of suretyship on the part of the wife. This note was secured by a mortgage on her property. Anderson offered the note for sale, before its maturity, to Strickland, who declined to purchase it, but stated to Anderson that if he would procure an exactly similar note, payable to Strickland himself, and secured by a mortgage in the latter's favor covering the same property, he would "buy" the papers. Anderson did procure such a note and mortgage, and delivered the same to Strickland. The original note and mortgage were canceled. Subsequently Mrs. Vance, after satisfying the note and mortgage held by Strickland, brought her action against him for the recovery of money and property belonging to her separate estate with which she had parted in settling with him. Under the facts as found by the jury, Mrs. Vance's true relation to the note was that of a surety only, and the sole question presented for our determination is this:...