The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-03-26

named firms being sued as cndorsers
Il. Novich d Bro, desiring to raise
money, requested Lewis IL Bro. TO become
accommodation endOrsers for them on Il
note for $4,000, which Lewis & Bro.
agreed to do; and under their direction
their bookkeeper partially filled out a
blank note. After it had been thus par
tally filled out, Lewis Bros. signed it
as endorsers and delivered it to Sam
Novich As thus delivered the note did
not provide for interest. Novich added Il
clause at the end of the body of the note
and above the signatures which made it
| bear interest at the rate of 10 per cent
per annum from maturity and signed the
note for himself and for Novich 81 Bro.
| In this condition the note went into the
hands of Pearlstone d Son, who sold it
to appellant. The addition Of the inter
est clause was unauthorized by Lewis d
Bros. Appellant acquired the note, in
due course Of trade for a valuable cOnsid-
Grafton, and without any notice of the
above facts.
Questions:
First-Did Norwich have implied au-
thority to insert in the note the stipula-
ton for interest?
Second-If not, is appellant entitled to
protection as an innocent purchaser or
holder?
Third-Would the insertion of the in
terest clause, if unauthorized by Lewis
a. Bros, under the circumstances stated,
render the entire note void!
First-There was nothing upon the face
of the note in the condition it was when
endorsed by Lewis a. Bros, which would
indicate that it was to bear interest other
than as fixed by law. 1t was complete
without the words added, and there was
no implied authority from the endOrsers
to the makers to add the words, with
interest at the rate of 10 per cent per
annum from maturity"
The addition of the words was a mate
rial alteration of the note, and, being
made without the consent of the endors-
ers, the note is rendered invalid in the
hands of an innocent holder, unless the
endorsers were guilty of such negligence
in making the endorsement as placed it i'll
the power of the person to whom they in
trusted the note to make the alteration
in such n manner as would appear to be
in accordance with its regular execution.
Second-Thc liability of the maker of a
note when it has been changed without
his authority depends upon the question
as to whether or not he has committed it
to another person in such form as to
imply authority in that person to make
the change and if he has done so, the
law holds that he has been negligent in so
executing and putting it in circulation,
and, as result, that he must suffer from
the acts of the person whom he trusted
rather than throw the loss upon another
who did not trust in the matter to the
person who made the alteration.
According to the statement made in this
case, and the form of the note embraced
therein, there was neither blank nor
words Indicating that any rate of interest
should be expressed. In such case, the
addition Of the words, as in this note, ut
the end thereof, was without any implied
authority, and, if not in fact authorized,
rendered the note void in the hands of
innocent holders thereof.
The words expressing the rate Of in
tcrest having been added without the
authority of the endorsers after the note
had been endorsed, and without any fault
on their part, the change made therein
destroyed the note and rendered it wholly
invalid as to them. No action can be
had upon the note and there being no
previous Indebtedness upon the part of
the endorscrs, they having received no
benefit from the execution of the note,
no recovery can be had against them for
the money advanced upon it.
Opinion by Brown, j.