Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOUCK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 285
    CAMERON et v. HAM
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Fulton Co.
    No. 80.
    Decided Jan. 29, 1926
    147. BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS —1. Endorsement in blank is unconstitutional, and qualified endorsement of subsequent indorser will not change liability of previous indorser in blank.
    2. Indorser, to bte qualified, must use' some words or phrase showing clear intent to limit or qualify indorsement.
    Attorneys — Fowler; Johnson, Johnson & Farber for Cameron et; Ham, Winn, Paxson & Canfield for Ham; all of Wauseon.
   HOUCK, J.

Frank S. Ham sued upon a note endorsed:

“L. C. Cameron”
“W. E. Fowler”
“Without recourse”

Proper noticte and demand were made upon the said Cameron, who refused payment, asserting that he was an endorser without recourse.

“The note introduced into evidence showed the words “without recourse” under the name of W. E. Fowler and in his handwriting. The Fulton Common Pleas gave judgment on said note to Ham. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The words “without recourse” appearing only after the name of Fowler, apply only to him.
2. Cameron cannot claim the rights of a qualified endorser by taking advantage of the qualified endorsement of Fowler.
3. A person wishing to qualify or limit his liability on the instrument must clearly indicate that his indorsement is limited or qualified.

Judgment affirmed.