Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-30
COURT DECISIONS.
E0les of Cases Recently Decided,
~. Which are Of Interest to
AQV. Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virsinian- Pilot.)
WINFREE V. +. n. BANK.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,
April &. 1899.
A HOLDER OF y NOTE AGREEING
TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME on
CONDITION THAT THE EN-
DORSER CONSENTS. DOES NOT
THEREBY RELEASE TIE EN-
DORSIK.
WHERE SUCH HOLDER AUTHOR
IzED HIS AGENT TO DISMISS y
SUIT on THE NOTE ON CERTAIN
CONDITIONS AND THE AGENT
DISMISSED 1T BEFORE THEY
WE'RE PERFORMED. THE EN-
DORSER Is NOT RELEASED.
"A JUDGMENT WILL NOT BE RE
VERSED FOR ERRONEOUS IN
STRUCTIONS. WHERE TIE WEIR
DICT WAS PROPER If CORRECT
INSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN GIN
EN-.
This was n proceeding by motion to
recover judgment on a negotiable note
made by Il. u. Hughes and indorscd by
}. Il. Winirec. Tho indorscr resisted
the judgment upon the following
grounds OF defense:
"ND That the plaintiff extended the
time of payment OF the note on which
It's action is brought. by binding
agreement with the principal, Il. T..
hughes. without the consent of the
indorscr and defendant. John u. Win
free.
"t2) That the plaintiff brought its ac-
ton against the said parties on the
same paper on which it now seeks
JUDGMENT. TO wit. to the March term
OF the Corporation Court OF the city OF
Iynchburg VA. and afterwards enter
Cd into a binding agreement for a val
liable consideration with the maker and
principal, =. T.. Hughes. to extend the
time OF payment. ana dismiss the action
ana no, take Judgment till some suisse
pucnt term. which agreement was with
out the knowledge ana consent of the
said John Is. Wintrcc''
There was "a Judgment for plaintiff
and defendant appealed.
The court SAYS.
Ii is not necessary to decide whether
an agreement. between the holder Of n
protested ncgotlahlc note and the prin-
oipal. To dismiss Il suit Voluntarily in
st;uted thereon. Without the knowl-
'dge or tonsent of the .ndorscr. is such
an extension OF time 10 the principal
rs viii discharge the indorscr. 40 such
agreement as ihat relied on is os;ab-
Nshcd in Jhe case at bar.
II is perfectly clear from tho facts
that tho defendant in error made no
agreement to dismiss the suit in uues-
ton. except uuon the terms of the let
Ter of March 10, 1897. from the cashier
II g. J.. Vaughan. one Of which terms
was that the plaintiff in error was to
consent 10 the whole arrangement and
evidence his consent by indorsing the
new note. Modification of these. terms
was pcrsistently refused 10 the last, AZ
shown by the telegram from the cash
ier to his brother.
9. u. Vaughan was i special agent
with limited authority. He had no DOW
cr 10 dismiss tho suit upon any other
terms than those contained in the cash
!ers letter. Relying upon the assur-
anrc OF hughes that h. would pay the
whole note by check that evening. q.
IL. Vaughan transcribed his authority
and dismissed the suit. The defendant
in error knew nothing about the dis
mIssdl Of tho suit until after the court
had adjourned. 50 far as the bank is
concerned. the unauthorized act Of q.
j.. Vaughan is a mere nullity its rights
in respect to the note being in no way
affected thereby.
In this view Of tho case. 1t becomes
unnecessary 10 consider the instrnc-
tions commented upon in the petition
for a writ of error: for if it were con
coded that the action of the court in
l"sp"c. 80 the Instructions given ana
refused WAS erroneous. il would be i'm