Walters v. Munroe

• Decision Date: 27 March 1861
• Citation: 17 Md. 150
• Parties: WILLIAM T. WALTERS and CHARLES HARVEY, v. JOHN H. MUNROE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

17 Md. 150

WILLIAM T. WALTERS and CHARLES HARVEY, v. JOHN H. MUNROE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 27, 1861

A deed of trust by the maker, to secure the endorser upon certain notes described in it, cannot be used as evidence that such endorser authorized or sanctioned the use of his name, by the maker, on other notes not described in the deed, nor identified by any declarations of the endorser.

Where there is no evidence that the endorser had notice that his name had been endorsed by the maker, upon the notes sued on until after such notes became due, he cannot be said to have authorized the endorsements.

An endorser cannot be held liable upon paper on which his name has been forged, merely because he may have paid other notes forged by the same person, without objection.

To enable a holder to recover against an endorser, he must prove that the signature of the defendant, as endorser, was genuine, or that his name was endorsed by his authority, or that the endorsement received his sanction or approbation after it was placed on the note.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Prince George's county.

Action, brought on the 18th of December 1857, by the appellants, as holders, against the appellee, as endorser, of two promissory notes drawn by George W. Harrison, in favor of the defendant, and purporting to be by him endorsed. The defendant pleaded that he did not promise, as alleged.

A commission was issued to Alexandria, Va., under which the same witnesses were examined, and the same testimony taken and returned, as stated in the preceding case of Whiteford vs. Munroe, and the deed of trust from Harrison to Funsten, offered in evidence in this case, is the same as stated in that case. At the trial, three exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court below, (CRAIN, J.,) the first of which is fully stated in the opinion of this court.

2 nd Exception. After the evidence in the preceding exception, made part of this, the plaintiffs proved, by a competent witness, that the defendant had stated on frequent occasions, and once upon oath, in his examination as a witness in court at Alexandria, Va., that he had procured the execution of the deed from Harrison to Funsten. The plaintiffs then offered in evidence the proof taken under the commission issued and returned in this case, and asked the court to instruct the jury that if they should believe, from the evidence, that the defendant had notice that his name had been placed on various notes by the drawer, Harrison, previous to and about the time of the date of the notes sued on, without objection to them that he thereby virtually authorized the endorsement of his name upon these notes now sued on, and made said endorsements his own. The court refused to grant this prayer, and to this ruling the plaintiffs excepted.

3 rd Exception. After the evidence in the preceding exceptions, made part of this, the plaintiffs asked the court to instruct the jury that if they find, from the evidence, that other notes were issued by said Harrison about the same time as the dates of the notes now in controversy, with the name of the defendant signed as maker or endorser thereon, which name upon said notes were forgeries, and that the defendant, with the knowledge that his name had been forged by Harrison upon said notes, recognized and paid them, then that the payment by said defendant of said notes, and other recognition by him, is a fact from which the jury may find for the plaintiffs in this case.

The court rejected this prayer of the plaintiffs, but instructed the jury that before they can find a verdict against the defendant, they must find, from the evidence in this cause, that the signature of the defendant, as endorser of said notes, was genuine, or that the same was endorsed on the notes by his authority, or that the said endorsements received his sanction or approbation after it was placed on said notes.

To which refusal to grant their instruction as prayed, to the instruction as given by the court, the plaintiffs excepted and the verdict and judgment being against them, appealed....