Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-17

There error in this judgment prsof It clear
to execute and sign the maker with him. as his security
and for his accommodation.
The bill single thus executed was delivered by Perkins
Bryan That this done TO enable the latter TO sell Il and
raise money upon IT, upon The faith OF the name of The former
was to sure made payable Ament because it sup
posed and perhaps they had good reason 50 to hnk that ne
the money But there Foundation for
the belief that Perkins placed Bryan under any restrictions as to
the to be made Of it. or that It was his ReLon that should
be passed to Buent, and no one else.
bryan having the possession Of this note, passed 1t to
Greenfed and received Of him. upon IT, the sum Of $50 co. and
he Instituted s suit in the Of Aent to his against
Perkins the note 10 recover the amount Tor which 1t was
The Circuit Judge charged the jury, Perkins became
to Amen Else, the plaintiff would be entitled to
he signed surety with general purpose to
enable money the note. without limiting him
the person whom he should pass it, then the plaintiff would
lie entledto recover ahoush az the time deendant signed me
he passed to Ament and the money obtained from
This charge we think sustained by the principles laid down
in Lyte 10 Yer All, and the authorities there
Judge Reese in delivering the opinion Of The Court says Ths
chancellor sustain the principle determined in this refers
the Of the Bank Of Rutland vs. Buck Wend Co. and
the Bank Chenaugo Hyde, Con- Rep 5G6 In the former
OF the made by spear and Everett and
gned by Buck as surety payable to the Bank II was made 10
enable Spear and Everett raise for their
don Upon its being offered at the Bank for discount he
Bank refused - discount IL and vas subsequently and before
it delivered House and Others collateral
security the payment Of judgment in their favor, against
Spear and Everett Inc sun was Drought 10 ts name o the
Bank the Of House and others 1t objected that
the uOe ulte pelng
the Bank object having failed, ought
returned surety. 1t admitted tht the Bank had
refused the money, and third person had done
in the case the Bank Of Chenango Hyde, Con- Rep 567
the surety would have been bound the substantial object the
raising money would have been obtained Itwas further OBJ
iece the received in the ordinary Of
commercial business aid SO as to be governed By the Law er
chant. Ch Savage, delivering the opinion o' the Court
saysf we'll formed objection to upon this
note 1t was drawn parpose OF raising money for the
accommodation the makers Spear aud Everett who have
had the tensft Of i.'
It s the same thing Perkins had expressly ssnte to
The Of the note Greenfield. And the fact that pay
able to the Amet, and never endorsed sanctioned BY
] him, c m make difference
Perkins must regarded having assened 70 the use Of
name the benefit Of Greened in order 70 make the
note available against him il suit became necessary
we have been discover that the charge Of the Cir
t e as open TO the criticism made upon it, and think the
verdict Of the jury warranted By the proof therefore
affirm the judgment. "H"AI'
A correct copy, J. P. CLARK, CLERK.