Williams v. Morris

• Decision Date: 29 May 1911
• Citation: 138 S.W. 464
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. MORRIS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

138 S.W. 464

WILLIAMS v. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 29, 1911.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Daniel Hou, Judge.

Suit by Fleetwood Morris against Coffee Williams and others. From the judgment, said Willams appeals. Affirmed.

This suit was brought by Fleetwood Morris against Coffee Williams, appellant, and C. L. Sloat and Newt Reed on the following promissory note: "$500.00 Oct. 12, 1907. One year after date we promise to pay to the order of Fleetwood Morris five hundred dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from date at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, and if interest be not paid annually, to become as principal and bear the same rate of interest. [Signed] A. L. Sloat, T. N. Reed, Coffee Williams."

An attachment and garnishment was sued out against appellant, on the grounds that he was a nonresident; had been absent from the state four months; had departed from the state with intent to defraud his creditors; that he was about to remove his property out of the state, not leaving enough therein to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, or the claims of his creditors; that he was about to sell his property with the fraudulent intent to cheat, hinder, and delay his creditors.

Appellant filed an affidavit controverting the grounds of attachment, and a separate answer. He alleged that he signed the note as surety, which fact was well known to plaintiff; that he signed upon the solicitation and with the distinct understanding with Sloat that one Horace Rogers would also sign the note, and that but for the assurance and promise of the said Sloat that said note to plaintiff would not be delivered until the same was signed by the said Horace Rogers, he would not have signed said note at all; that plaintiff had full knowledge of this fact that Rogers did not sign said note at all; and that Sloat made the said promises and representations to him for the purpose of inducing him to sign said note, and upon said promise and representation he did sign it.

It was further alleged that Sloat fraudulently represented to the defendant that the note he presented for signature was signed by him and for him, when in fact the said note contained the signature of the wife of said defendant Sloat, or the name of some other Sloat other than that of defendant, and when in fact the said defendant Sloat knew that said representations that the signature was his were false and untrue and made for the purpose of inducing, and did induce, this defendant to sign said note.

The testimony tended to show that C. L. Sloat brought the note sued on to appellee, with whom he had before talked of borrowing some money, and handed it to him and asked him what he thought about it. He replied it looked like a good note, and gave him a check for the money. He thought at the time he was lending the money to Claude Sloat, and that the signature was C. L., instead of A. L., as it turned out to be. He knew C. L. Sloat was bankrupt, however, and would not have loaned him any money without the sureties, and did not rely upon him, but upon the others who had signed the note. Appellant testified that Clyde Sloat asked him to sign his note, saying he desired to borrow some money from Fleetwood Morris to go into business; that he at first refused, and was assured that if he would sign it that he (Sloat) would get Newt Reed and Horace Rogers to sign it also; and that he agreed to sign it, if they would sign it with him. "I said, `I want you to understand that it is not negotiable, unless they do sign it.' He said, `All right; I will not try to cash it, or anything of the kind, unless I can get them to sign it.' Then I signed the note." He also stated he would not have signed the note, had he known that it was Sloat's wife's, and not his, name upon it. Newt Reed's signature was upon...