Williams v. Morris

• Citation: 138 S.W. 464,99 Ark. 319
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. MORRIS
• Decision Date: 29 May 1911
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

138 S.W. 464

99 Ark. 319

WILLIAMS v. MORRIS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 29, 1911

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

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 non-resident; 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 when in fact the said defendant Sloat knew that said representations that the signature was his was 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 cheek 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 wouldn't 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 Claude 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 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 and not his name upon it. Newt. Reed's signature was upon the note when appellant signed it, and he also stated that he supposed he was signing Claude's note at the time and refused to sign until Sloat told him he would get Coffee Williams and Horace Rogers to sign also. Alvin Williams, a brother--in--law of appellant, testified that Morris told him that the note was signed by Sloat's wife and he thought it was signed by Sloat, and also that he thought Horace Rogers was on it. Morris admitted he told Henderson, after the attachment suit was brought, that he had learned that Claude Sloat was not on the note, and that it had been signed by his wife; denied that Horace Rogers's name was mentioned in the conversation at all; stated that he never heard Horace Rogers's name mentioned or discussed at all until after Mr. Williams came back from Mexico and told him that Horace Rogers was to go on the note; that at the time he loaned the money nothing was said about Rogers that the note was brought to him "Just like it is there. Yes, sir. I have never considered or heard of a single name on the note until he presented it." There was also testimony tending to show that Williams had moved his family and household furniture to Mexico, temporarily he claimed, and that he had been frequently out of the State; that he only had of personal property in this State a note for $ 2,000 that his agent was trying to sell for him at the time of the attachment and his home place in Fort Smith, worth about $ 8,000 and mortgaged for $ 2,000.

The court instructed the jury, which returned a verdict against appellant for $ 625, and the attachment was sustained. From the judgment this appeal comes.

Judgment affirmed.

Rowe & Rowe, for appellant.

1. Where the signature to the note of a married woman is procured through fraud and deceit, the surety is not bound. Tiedeman, Com. Paper, 423; 17 Ia. 393; 27 Ia. 531; 43 Ind....