The Delta independent., 1913-05-09
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW;
SIGNING A NOTE
By Walter X Towers, A. B., j. D.,
of the Michigan bar.

of the Michigan bar.
One Econ while Jascn Edwards Wa
sitting on the porch OF his prosperous
farm home, resting before he return
ed to the fields, shiny top buggy,
drawn by long-legged bay drew into
the side yard and brisk young man
descended. He presented the card
the National Silo Co., and solicited
an order. Mr. Edwards needed a silo
and signed an order for one, to be
erected later. He read the brder
carefully and noted its contents. 1t
clearly read as an order for a silo. for
the erection of which, if completed
within sixty days after date, he was
to pay 500.
No silo appeared. nor could Mr..
Edwards locate the company, but he
saw nothing to worry about until,
sixty days later, a nearby bank pre-
sented to him for payment note for
s100 in regular form and bearing his
signature. He protested that he had
signed no such note, yet acknowledge
ed that it was his signature. Exami-
nation showed that it was one end
of the silo order he had signed. 1t
one end might be cut off. leaving
promissory note in regular form. The
bank insisted that it had paid full
price for a regular note and as it was
negotiable instrument it was pro-
tected as bona fide holder. Ed
wards sought advice and being told
that he would have to pay the note.
did so.
torney would have probably saved
Edwards 500 since few states will
support such a note. signed under
such circumstances. True. if one is
induced to sign a negotiable promis-
sorry note through fraud and that note
is sold in ordinary course to a bank
or Individual the purchaser accepting
it in perfect honesty and good faith.
paying full value for an apparently
regular instrument that is not yet due,
the quality of negotiability is such
that the purchaser will have better
rights than the rogue who transferred
il. Indeed, under such circumstances,
the signer would have to pay the note.
But rightly viewed the case of John
Edwards is not the case. He was not
induced by fraud to sign a note, be-
cause he did not sign note. What
he signed was an order. Having new
er signed a note but something en-
tirely different which was changed
into a note, he is no more liable than
If his signature was forged to a reg
ular note. Yet it is not strange that
many laymen have confused this rule
and suffered needlessly when some
of our courts have made the mistake.
The other side of the picture is the
fraud practiced on Allen McGoorty
and his wife. Again buggy came
down the road but it was driven wild
ly by a young man, and to his arm
clung a young woman. They paused
at the hospitable looking house for
refuge and told of eloping from
cruel father. Now. all the world loves
lover, and the McGoorty's were all
assistance. Opportunely. quite by &C
cident of course, clergical looking
gentleman appeared from the other di-
rection. Yes, he would marry them,
and did-at least he went through the
ceremony. or course the bride wept.
lSn did ~ 10.
Goorty blew his nose and found his
eyes a bit dim. In the confusion the
Reverand remarked that the witness
es must sign the certificate and push
ed pepper toward them which they
readily signed
Three months later a bank produ.
ed the marriage certificate" for pay
ent. 1t was regularly drawn note
for $500. McGoorty had to pay it as
he was legally liable He had com
mitted the fault of failing to read
what he signed. In this case he ac-
tually signed a note. OF course,
neither the "reverand" or his associ-
ates could have collected the note
from the McGoorty's. but they had
negotiated the note at the bank, which
having nothing to arouse its suspicion
land knowing McGoorty's signature.
purchased It for full value. whereup-
on the "reverand" and his friends
moved on to try their scheme in vir
gin soil, taking care to be well away
when the notes fell due. Where one
of two innocent persons must suffer
the law takes the view that the one
who by his carelessness made the