President of the State Bank v. Parker, 12 N.C. 484, 1 Dev. 484 (1828)

June 1828 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

12 N.C. 484, 1 Dev. 484

The President & Directors of the State Bank v. Wm. Wilson & James Parker.

From Gates.

The declarations of a creditor, or of his general agent, that his debt is discharged, is prima facie evidence of payment.

Mere delay of the holder in collecting a note, will not discharge an endorsi r, who lias been duly fixed with ihe payment. Bui if the holder, by a new contract, varies ihe obliga'ion of ihe maker, and prevenís the endorser from having immediate recourse against lem, up-m paying the debt, and taking an assignment of the sccuriiy, he discharges tiie endorser.

At law, an endorser has the same right to an assignment of a judgment against the maker on the note, that he has to the note itself.

Assumpsit upon the endorsement by the Defendants, of.1 he promissory note of one William T. Muse, fir 4700 dolíais, which had been discounted at the office of the Plaintiffs, in Etlenton. The defence was upon the general issue, and the. following facts were in evidence,— That Muse died in Pasquotank county, in July, 1823, that at the next term, one John B. Blount, who was the Cashier of the Plaintiffs at the Etlenton Branch, proved his will, and qualified as executor thereof — that at M nr.li term, 1824, of Chowan County Court, Blount confessed a judgment to the Piaiijtiffs for the principal and interest of the note. — that writs of 'Ji. fa. issued on that judgment, and were directed to the- Sheriff of Chowan, from every term until thai of D.cembeiv 1824, but none of the writs appeared to have been delivered to the Sheriff— from December ima, 1824, a Ji.fa. issu'd I» the SIíoí-ííF of Pasquotank, who returned “no property to be found ii), iii ,. ,, but such as was soid under other and older executions. The. Defendants calhd upon J. B. Skinner, Esq. who proved that on tlie 1st of January, 1825, the Defendant Wilson came front Pasquotank to see, hi in, at his residence in Edenton, and informed him of Ins endorsement of «Muse’s note, then held by the Plaintiffs, and of his great uneasiness about it, because Blount had advertised the negroes b- lunging to the estate of «Muse for sale, in Pasquotank, on the 13.h of that month, and that lie feared, urucss execution was issued, and satisfaction obtained out of the negroes, before the sale by tlie executor, that the executor Blount, would waste the assets, and he, Wils m, be'finally compelled to pay and lose, the debt — that >Skinner having the mom y, agieed to advance Wilson cash suiiiiient to fake up 'he debt, and advised the Defendant Wilson to do so, and take an assignment of tne judgment. That on the same d .y, the witness and Wilson went to the oflieyof the Plain I iii, in Edenton, and informed Blount, the Cashier, -f ¡he object of Wilson, and then off'red to pay ;lie debt, and take an assignment of tbe judgment, if it was not ihvady satisfied; to ivhseo Blount replied that this was unnecessary, as tlm d-iit would be setiled in a few days, tin* Plaintiffs having agreed to take inpayment, of it, notes which would be received upon tic- s¡ie of the negroes then advertis'd. That the witness and Wilson, nor being satisfied with this assurance, insisted upon Mount’s calling a mieling of the Directors, at which Skinner, who was a Directo!', made a full statement of the, views of Wilson, and offered for him then to pay the amount of the judgment and take an assignment of it — that the Directors seemed anxious io prevent a sacrifice of Muse’s estate, by selling the negroes for cash, and expiessed their willingness to receive notes from Blount, for the deh- — and ihey pi opo-ed, that instead id making an assignment to Wilson, aj.fa. should issue to Pasquotank, that one of the Directors should atlend the sale, and receive in satisfaction of the judgment, notes which might be taken at it; with which arrangement, the Defendant Wilson, was satisfied.

The Defendant then called the Sheriff of Pasquotank, who proved that Muse left a large estate — that Blount, his executor, in January, 1825, sold slaves which had belonged to his testator, to the amount of 14,500 dollars— that the. sale, was upon a credit, and for notes negotiable at the office of the Plaintiffs in Edenton — that Blount coa-ducted the sale, and that the. member of the Board of Directors, alluded to at the meeting in Edenton, was present — that the notes were taken by Blount, with the knowledge and consent of that gentleman — that the execution upon the judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs, was not delivered to him before, or at the sale, nor ever in Pasquotank county, nor did he hear thereof until some weeks after it — that at the time of the sale, he had snn-Avy fi. fa’s, against Blount as executor, on which was due a balance of six or seven thousand dollars, and which were levied on the slaves — that at the request of Blount, he relinquished the levy, and some days thereafter went to Edenton, when Blount paid him the amount of the-Ji. fa’s; there he first received the execution on the judgment for this debt, and was directed to make the return of nulla bona testatoris. The witness further proved, that in the evening of the day when Muse’s ne-groes were sold, one of the Defendants asked the Director who attended the sale, what w’as done with this debt, or whether it was satisfied ? To which he replied, you arc safe, for the Bank has agreed to take notes of Blount — some have been submitted to, and approved by the Board, and Blount is now taking others, which will cover the balance.

Mr. Skinner was,again called, and proved, that in May or June, 1825, fie, on behalf of the Defendant Wilson, applied at the Bank, to learn the situation of the debt for which the Defendants were bound, believing that Blount could pay the debt, if it was then placed under their control, which the witness was willing to effect, by advancing the money for their benefit. That to his en-quiry, what was the situation of the debt, and whether the endorsers were discharged ? he was answered by the Cashier, Blount, that they were — the debt having been paid by him, and the whole business settled. It was proved by Mr. Creecy, the book-keeper of the Plaintiff, that neither cash or notes had been paid into the Bank on account of the debt by Blount — and he further stated, that the Cashier was the only person who could rereive cash, and grant acquittances for debts due the Bank — - that no Director bad this power, and that the Cashier was the general agent of the corporation. The witness also proved, that some time in the. summer of the year 1825, the Defendant Wilson came, to the Bank, and asked Blount what had been done with this note, and whether the debt had been settled, to which the Cashier replied “it is paid, and you are discharged,” — that as soon as the Defendant had gone out, the witness asked Blount “ if the debt was settled, why not make the- entries accordingly;” to which Blount replied. “ it is done, or it will or shall be done, which is the same thing, and then the entries can be made.”

Blount died insolvent, and this suit was commenced in March, 1826.

His honor Judge Ruppin charged the Jury, “that, in point of law, the declaration of a creditor, that a debt to him was paid, was prima facie evidence of that fact, and that the declaration to the same import of ageneral agent, such as the Cashier had been represented by the witness Creecy to be, was within the scope of his authority, and would have the like operation with that of the principal himself.. That in this case, the Jury were at liberty to infer the .payment of the debt from the express words of. the said Blount, unless that inference of fact should be repelled, in their opinion, by the testimony of Creecy; in which latter case, they could not find for the Defend-aiit, upon (he ground of an actual payment. And in that event, it would be necessary for the Jury to consider the other points of defence, arising out of the testimony. In relation to that insisted on, by reason of time having been given by the Plaintiff to John 6?. Blount, it was not true, that every giving of time by the holder of a note to the maker, would discharge the endorsers. Nor was it generally true, but was so, only under particular circumstances, and in a certain sense. On the contrary, the general rule was, that after the holder had, by due diligence in demanding payment from the maker, and giving notice to the endorser of non-payment, Jixetl the endorser, the contract of the endorser being separate and distinct from that of the maker, his obligation to pay became likewise independent, and the holder was not compelled to proceed further against the maker, but might sue the endorser alone. That in this case therefore, the Plaintiff was not bound to sue Blount in the first instance, nor were the Defendants discharged by the. mere delay of the Bank in not suing the maker, or his executor, sooner | nor by not taking out execution on the judgment after it was obtained ; nor by the Bank merely not proceeding on the execution ; nor by any other mere delay of the Plaintiff to compel payment by Blount. But although such was the general rule of law, yet the endorser had certain rights, arising out of the relations of the parties to the note, which the holders must take care not to interfere with, by altering those relations to the prejudice of the endorsers. That one of those rights, for instance, was that of the endorsers to ultimate recourse against the maker, after the former should have taken up the note from the holder. And therefore, if the holder released the maker, or compounded the debt, by taking from the maker a new security, in satisfaction of the first note, these acts would discharge the'endorsers. That another of these rights was that of the endorser to de-i „ manu, at any time, ot the, holder to receive payment from the endorser, and to surrender to him the security, jn such a situation as to enable the endorser to have immediate recourse to the maker; and therefore, if the holder, by way of compounding with the maker, or by any other new arid independent contract with him, enlarged the time of payment for a definite period, before the expiration of which the maker could not be sued on the note, or be compelled to pay the money due by reason of the note having been given, the holder must, in such case, look to the maker alone, on his new contract; for that by such acts, the endorser was discharged, seeing that thereby the remedy on the note against, the maker was suspended, and the right of the endorser instantly to enforce it interrupted. If therefore, in this case, there was, after the agreement of the Bank with Wilson to send an execution to Pasquotank, as stated by Skinner, a new agreement made between the Plaintiff and Blount, without the knowledge and concurrence of the endorsers, that the Bnnk should not sue out the execution, but forbear the whole debt for some definite time, upon Blount’s own engagement to pay the debt with other promissory notes, and the Plaintiff trusting to such promise of Blount, and in consideration thereof, did not send out, but withheld the execution, and did forbear the said debt, that such a forbearance and giving of time, were a'discharge to the endorsers, and the more especially, as in this case the witness proved (if believed) that the execution,' if it had been sent out, would have been satisfied out of the slaves belonging to Muse’s estate. The Court further stated to the Jury, that such an agreement had not been directly proved by any witness, in express terms, and therefore, if it existed at all, was to be collected by inference only from other facts proved, and that to the Jury it was left to draw or reject such inference of fact from the testimony. And the Court further instructed the Jury, that if they should not find such an agreement, as above supposed, yet that it an endorser, with the view 0f faking up a note, and securing himself against the maker, apply to the holder and inform him of his intention, and offer to pay the sum due on the note, and demand the note, or an assignment of a judgment on it, and the holder, knowing (hat it is not piiid, inform the endorser that it is paid, and declare to him, that he (the endorser) is discharged, and that the holder will no longer look to the endorser, and refuses to deliver up the security, such acts and declarations of the holder do discharge the endorser $ and that the declaration of such a general agent as the Cashier of a Bank (with the powers and authority said by the witness Creecy to belong to him) to the said Skinner and to the said Wilson, to the effect proved by the witnesses, would have the same effect, as if they had been made by the holder himself, being a natural person, though these declarations were false, in that the debt was not paid, unless the falsehood were known.to the said Wilson, or his agent, and such declarations were made through collusion between the Defendants, or one of them, and said Blount, with intent to defraud his principal, the Plaintiff. JB’or the law would throw the consequences of the fraud of th,e Plaintiff’s agent noi known to the endorser, upon the Plaintiff who employed him, and not on the- innocent endorser, and the more especially in this case, since the said declarations, if found by rhe Jury to have been made, in one instance, were made to said Skinner, who was himself one of the Directors ; and in the other instance, to the said Wilson, in the presence of Creecy, the Plaintiffs book-keeper, who at the same time knew it to be false, and did not so inform the Defendant.”

A verdict was returned for the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs appealed.

No Counsel appeared for the appellants, and the cause was submitted without argument, by Gaston, for the Defendants.

Per Curiam.

We think that the Jury were not misdirected by the Judge in his charge ; the judgment must therefore he affirmed.