Case ID: scl_15/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colcock, J. Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bank of the State of South-Carolina vs. John M'Willie and others.
    Where several gave a joint Power of Attorney to their Agent to renew a note they had in Bank, as Indorsers, the renewed note must be made in conformity with the original note, as to the order of indorsements, or the Agent will be considered as having-exceeded his power.
    But, quere. — How far is one Indorser answerable over to another on an accommodation note, for the benefit of the drawer 1
    This was an action of assumpsit brought jointly against iho defendants as indorsers of a note of one Simon Beck-ham, drawn and indorsed by Samuel Green, as attorney for the parties to the note, and intended as a renewal of a note formerly indorsed by the parlies and discounted at the Bank. The original note was signed by Simon Beckham,-and payable to John M’Willie, and by him and the other defendants indorsed, successively. The Power of Attorney was to sign renewals. It was proved by Dr. Green, that the first note was an accommodation note, and discounted for the benefit of the. drawer, Simon Beckham.
    His honour, Judge Huger, nonsuited the plaintiff because the note (a renewal) on which this action was brought, was not drawn in conformity with the Power of Attorney, the names of the indorsers not having been signed in the same order.
    
      Evans, for the plaintiff,
    appealed, and moved to set aside the nonsuit on the grounds, that although the •agent had departed from the form of the original note, he had not varied the liability of the parties to the Bank, or to each other, and he argued that the indorsers to an accommodation note were jointly liable, if not paid by the drawer.
    Miller, contra.
   Curia per

Colcock, J.

Wé concur with the presiding Judge in this case. The nonsuit was very properly ordered; for the power to renew did not authorize Cree" to alter the form of the note, so as to change the respective responsibilities of the parties, which he has most unquestionably dono, Chitty, SO to SI I do not think that it was ever doubted before, that the indorsers of a note are liable in the order in which they indorse ; and that it very often happen*; that notes are indorsed by a second or third indorser more on the reliance, which is placed on the responsibility of the preceding indorser, than on that of the maker of the note. , The motion is dismissed.

Nott, J.

I concur with the presiding Judge in this case, that the attorney acted without authority, and therefore the nonsuit was properly granted. But how far one indorser is answerable over to another on an accommodation note, I express no opinion.

JohwsoN, J. concurred with the observations made by Mr. J ustice Nott. Nonsuit confirmed.