Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0366-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 427
    No. 20231
    Leroy D. Shannon v. The Universal Mortgage and Discount Company.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Muskingum County.
    480. EVIDENCE — Where promissory note is by the payee transferred with intent to pass title, and unqualifiedly endorsed by him to show transfer, same in the absence of fraud or mistake cannot be varied by parol as to pri- or or contemporaneous agreement.
    147. BILLS & NOTES — In action upon endorsement of promissory note, the endorser for purpose of defense may seek by cross-petition, the reformation of such endorsement, upon equitable principals, however, if not sustained by clear and convincing proof such relief is properly denied. (Farr v. Ricker, 46 OS. 265 approved and followed.)
    287. CONSIDERATION — Promise to pay debt upon which promissor is already bound does not constitute consideration to support a new contract.
    923. PLEADING — In action by bona fide holder to recover from endorser on promissory note and answer pleads that which indorser is already legally bound to do, such is not a defense and a judgment in pleadings in favor of bona fide holder is properly granted.
   DAY, J.

1. When a promissory note is by the payee thereof transferred with intent to pass title ■therein, and unqualifiedly indorsed by such payee to evidence the transfer, the contract implied from such indorsement can not, in the absence of fraud or mistake, be varied or explained by parol evidence as to prior or contemporaneous agreement.

2. In an action upon such indorsement, the indorser, for the purpose of defense, may seek, by way of cross-petition, the reformation of such indorsement, upon equitable principles; if the averments of such cross-petition are not sustained by clear and convincing proof, such relief is properly denied. (Farr v. Ricker, 46 Ohio St. 265, approved and followed.)

3. A promise to pay a debt for which the promissor is already legally hound does not constitute a consideration sufficient to support a new contract.

4. In an action where a bona fide holder seeks to recover against an indorser upon a promissory note and the answer pleads the defense of a promise to do a thing which such indorser is already legally bound to perform, such answer does not state a defense and a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the holder of such promissory note is properly granted.

Judgment affirmed.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.