Venable v. Lippold

• Decision Date: 07 August 1897
• Parties: VENABLE v. LIPPOLD.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 181

102 Ga. 208

VENABLE v. LIPPOLD.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 7, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the well-established rule that a married woman who signs negotiable promissory notes apparently as a joint principal, though, in fact, she is a surety only, becomes liable to a bona fide purchaser for value who buys the notes before their maturity, and without notice of the suretyship the verdict in the plaintiff's favor was, under the evidence submitted, fully warranted.

2. In the trial of an action upon such notes, it was not competent to impeach the alleged bona fides of the plaintiff's holding thereof by showing that he did not return for taxation, in either of the two years following that in which the alleged purchase was made, any notes, solvent debts accounts, or money.

3. The requests to charge were objectionable, in that they sought an expression of opinion from the presiding judge as to the probative value of certain evidence, the weight and effect of which were matters exclusively for determination by the jury.

Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by Charles G. Lippold against Ellen Venable and others. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial by defendant Ellen Venable overruled, and she brings error. Affirmed.

W. I Heyward, for plaintiff in error.

P. F. Smith, W. W. Gaines, and R. R. Shropshire, for defendant in error.

FISH J.

Suit was brought, in the city court of Atlanta, by Lippold against John Venable, W. E. Venable, and Ellen Venable, as joint makers upon four promissory notes, one of which was as follows: "Atlanta, Ga., Dec. 26, 1893. On Jan. 26, 1894 without grace, we promise to pay to Empire State Bank, or bearer, one hundred dollars, at Empire State Bank, in Atlanta, Ga., for value received. [Signed] John Venable. [Seal.] W. E. Venable, [Seal.] Mrs. Ellen Venable." The other notes were the same, except they respectively became due February 26, March 26, and April 26, 1894. Mrs. Venable pleaded, in substance, that she received no consideration for signing the notes; that she was only surety for the other makers; that, when the notes were transferred to plaintiff, he knew that they had been given as renewal or substitute notes for an old indebtedness due by W. E. Venable to Tolleson or the Empire State Bank; that the notes show upon their faces that she was a married woman, which fact required plaintiff to inquire whether she was the wife of either of the other makers, or whether or not she was surety; and that the mode, time, place, and consideration for which the notes were transferred were of such an unbusinesslike character as to put plaintiff on notice that something was wrong with them, and that plaintiff was not a bona fide holder, for value, without notice. The other defendants filed no answers. Mrs. Venable, in her own behalf, testified: "I do not owe the Empire State Bank or J. R. Tolleson anything. Don't know for what the notes were given. Never authorized any one to borrow money for me from the Empire State Bank or J. R. Tolleson. I signed the notes only as security. I signed them as my husband told me to sign them. I was only a security." Plaintiff, Charles G. Lippold, introduced by the defendant, testified: "I am the owner of the notes sued on. I purchased them with others of like character, amounting to $1,500, 00, from J. R. Tolleson, cashier of the Empire State Bank, in the office of the bank, on the day of the date that they were signed. I paid for them money to the amount of about $100, and balance in good notes. The transaction was made in the evening, to the best of my recollection, between five and six o'clock. I stopped in the office, on my way home, in the evening. I usually went home between five and six o'clock. I knew that John Venable and W. E. Venable were in the soda-water business, and were hard pressed for money. These notes were secured by mortgage on their property at West End. I don't know whether I turned these notes in for taxes. Think I returned some notes for taxes. I knew that Tolleson had been in jail for contempt of court in a bank case. I paid value for these notes, and at the time of the purchase I had no knowledge...