Wiley v. Hight

• Decision Date: 31 October 1866
• Citation: 39 Mo. 130
• Parties: GEORGE W. WILEY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM P. HIGHT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

39 Mo. 130

GEORGE W. WILEY, Respondent,

v.WILLIAM P. HIGHT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1866.

Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

This suit was commenced against the appellant as endorser of a promissory note for the sum of one hundred dollars, dated June 30, 1860, payable six months after date, with ten per cent. interest from maturity.

On the trial in the Law Commissioner's Court, the plaintiff introduced and read in evidence the note and protest filed in said action, and rested.

The defendant introduced a witness, Washington Hight, who testified that he was the maker of the note in question; that the defendant endorsed the note at his request and for his accommodation solely; that the note was negotiated to one Henry White, who held it until after maturity; that after the maturity of the note, and while White continued to hold it, he paid White money for the purpose of extending the payment thereof; that White agreed that if he would pay him fifteen per cent. interest he would extend the note as long as he desired him to do so, as long as he paid that rate of interest, and he did extend the time of payment; that he paid him in all about fifty dollars for the purpose of procuring such extension; that he never knew any other person in the transaction except White until the action was commenced; that in November last (the trial being February 26, 1864) White offered to settle the matter with him, and talked and acted as if he still owned the note; that at one time after the maturity of the note, by White's direction he left some money with the plaintiff to be paid by him to White, and when he so left the money with plaintiff he told him it wa to be paid by him to White, to be applied upon this note, and it was afterwards so applied--and that plaintiff received such money to be paid by him to White, to be applied on this note; that all this was done without any knowledge of the defendant, and that White never held but one such note against him, and that he never saw the note after he first delivered it to White until since the commencement of suit thereon.

The defendant asked the court to give the following instruction or declaration of law, viz:

“If this court, sitting as a jury, shall believe from the evidence in the cause that the defendant endorsed the note in question for the accommodation of the maker; that after such endorsement the maker negotiated the same to one Henry White; that said White continued to hold said note after the maturity thereof; that after the maturity of said note, while said White still held said note, an agreement was entered into between the maker and holder thereof by which the maker agreed to pay to such holder money for the extension of the time of the payment of said note, and that said maker paid to said holder and said holder received money for such extension, and that such agreement between the maker and holder was without the consent of the defendant,--then the defendant is discharged from all liability on said note and plaintiff cannot recover against him.”

Which the court refused.

The court then, of its own motion, declared the law as follows:

“The court declares the law to be, that an agreement made after maturity between the maker and endorsee of a...