Case Name: Boyd v. Bank of Toledo
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1877-12
Citations: 32 Ohio St. 526
Docket Number: 
Parties: Boyd v. Bank of Toledo.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 32
Pages: 526–532

Head Matter:
Boyd v. Bank of Toledo.
Such conduct on the part of an indorsor toward the holder of negotiable paper, as is calculated to put a person of reasonable prudence off his guard, or to induce him'to omit demand or protest, or to give notice of dishonor, will dispense with the necessity of taking these steps.
Error to the.District Court of Lucas county.
The action below was against Boyd, accommodation indorser of a note which foil due Saturday, October 12, 1872. The note had been renewed, in bank, once or twice, and a 'new one was now prepared by the maker for Boyd to in-, dorse, as before, for the purposes of another renewal. On the day of maturity, Weil, one of the makers, took this new note to Boyd for his indorsement. Weil testified :
“I asked Boyd to indorse renewal note; he said he wouldn’t do it; he said, at first, that I should see if I could get it at George Stebbins’, that he (Stebbins) should indorse it; then he said that he had to go out of town, and that if he (Stebbins) would not go on, he (Boyd) would attend to it next week, and that I should tell Mr. Griffith so. He said I should leave the note at the bank.- I went down then; first I looked for Stebbins, and couldn’t find him; then I went to the bank and, told Mr. Griffith what Boyd had told me — that if he should not be back in time, before the bank dosed that day, he would attend to it next week. Don’t think he mentioned any particular day. That is what he told me — I should leave it there. I guess it was on Saturday when the note was due. It was pretty near noon — a little before noon, when I went up there with the note, after I had been to see George-Stebbins; I couldn’t find Stebbins; it was Friday or Saturday morning that I saw Boyd; I can not tell any more than that it was one of those two days.”.
On cross-examination, although, his memory was tested on the subject, he still insisted that Boyd’s directions wei-e “ to leave the note at the bank, and tell Griffith (the president) if he did n’t get back in time, he would attend to it next week.” This statement is repeatedly made.
Mr. Griffith said:
“Am president of the Merchants’ National Bank. The note for $2,000, dated August 10, and maturing October 12, was in the bank; we discounted it for Eldridge & Weil, and when it matured — on the day of maturity — on Saturday, October 12, Mr. Weil brought this note — it was for sixty days — and had been renewed several times before; he brought this and said Boyd was out of town and didn’t know that he would get back before Monday, and if he did n’t get back on Saturday, he would come in and arrange it, or attend to it, on Monday. We simply then attached the renewal note to the original note, waiting for Boyd to come in on Monday and indorse it. The same circumstance had happened once before. I believe a like circumstance of this kind occurred once before where it was renewed after maturity.
“ Q. Renewed by Boyd after maturity ?
“A. Yes, sir.
' “Q. On the same paper?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You say Weil came in and told you that Mr. Boyd said he would be there and attend to it next week?
“A. He said, if he did n’t get home in time on Saturday, he would come in on Monday and arrange it, or attend to it. That was the substance of it. I will not be positive about the word.”
Mr. Griffith also said, that “ on Monday he went out to look up Boyd, and get the matter arranged, having just learned that the makei-s had failed. He said he met Boyd in the street, and told him what Weil had said, to which Boyd replied : ‘I will come in this afternoon, and arrange it.’ ” And again he said, that “ he told Boyd the new note was waiting at the bank to be indorsed, and that Boyd replied he would come in and attend to it. The note had been brought to the bank during bank hours of Saturday, and left there for Boyd’s indorsement.” Griffith further said, as to Boyd’s statements: “ He said he would come in and arrange it, or attend to it. He gave me to understand it would be all right. The. amount of his statement was, he would come in in the afternoon and fix it, or arrange it, or do something. That is what I say now. I do not recollect the precise words, but the impression left on my mind was that he would come in and arrange it in the afternoon.
Wm. La.ugh.lin, father-in-law of one of the makers of the note, testified to statements of Boyd made about the time of the maturity of the paper. He said, that “ Boyd spoke of his going out of town, and that he had told Weil to leave the note at the bank; that Boyd said he had told Weil that he was going out of town, and for him (Weil) to have the.note at the bank, and he (Boyd) would call and fix it when he came back.”
The note in suit was in the Merchants’ National Bank, for collection, on the day of its maturity, but was not protested, and plaintiff in error claims that there was no proper notice to him of dishonor, and that being indorser he was 'discharged.
The bank claims, among other things, that the circum stances show a waiver of demand and notice by the indorser.
The cause was submitted to the court, which found for the bank, in the amount of the note and interest. A motion for a new trial was overruled, a bill of exceptions was taken, and, on error, the district court affirmed the judgment of the common pleas ; whereupon a petition in error was filed in the supreme court.
Kent, Newton & Pugsley, for plaintiff in error.
Osborn & Swayne, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wright, J.
The only question we propose to consider is, did the words and deeds of Boyd amount to a waiver of notice of dishonor ?
Parsons states the law on the subject thus: "Demand and notice may be waived by an act of the indorser, calculated to put the holder off his guard and prevent him from treating the note as he otherwise would have done." 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 582.
The same author also says, page 592 : " It wiil be seen that the general principle upon which most of these cases on the subject of waiver depends is, that the indorser has, by act or word, done something calculated to mislead the holder, and induce him to forego taking the usual steps to charge the indorser. The same principle would apply, in our opinion, when the declarations are made on the day of maturity. Thus, where the holder asked the indorser, on the day the note matured, if it would be best to call upon the makers, and the indorser replied that it would be of no use, a regular demand and notice were deemed waived. So a verbal request by the indorser to the holder not to protest the note was held to be a waiver of demand. "With reference to the question whether a particular conversation amounts to a waiver, no general rule can be laid down,' except that the words used must be such as fairly to lead a reasonable man to suppose that the indorser did not wisli that the regular course in making a demand and giving notice should be pursued, or such as would be calculated to prevent him from so doing. But, on the other hand, the language must not he so vague, uncertain, or loose as to raise a reasonable doubt as to what was intended."
On this subj'ect Edwards says, page 633 (Licit.): " And any conduct on the part of the (drawer or) indorser calculated to, and actually inducing the holder to omit serving him with (a) regular notice, will have the same effect. Thus where it was proved that a few days before the bill became due the drawer called at the counting-house of the holder, and being asked the place of his residence, replied that he had no regular residence, that he was living among his friends, and would call and see if the bill was paid by the acceptor, this was held to dispense with notice, and threw upon the drawer the duty of inquiring whether the bill was met at maturity."
In Lary v. Young, 8 Eng. (13 Ark.) 402, the head note reports: "A few days before it (the note) became due, the attorneys of the indorsee reminded the indorser it would soon be due, and that the maker had left the place. The indorser replied that he owed the note, that it was all right, that he had indorsed to pay it when it became due: his agent, who had notes and accounts in his hands for collection, would do so. Held, sufficient waiver of demand and notice."
Daniels says : " Any act, course of conduct, or language of the drawer or indorser calculated to induce the holder not 'to make demand or protest, or give notice, or to put him off his guard, or any agreement by the parties to that effect, will dispense with the necessity of taking these steps." 2 Daniels Neg. Inst., § 1103, p. 130.
In Gove v. Vining, 7 Met. 212, the syllabus is: "A promissory note was made payable at either bank, in Boston, in four months from December 27, 1841, and was indorsed by the payee. On the 27th of April, 1842, the holder sent a messenger, with a note and written notice to the in dorser, requesting payment, to the house in which the maker and indorser resided. The maker was absent, but the indorser read the notice and told the messenger that the maker would see the holder in a short time, and wished him not to sue the note until the maker should see him. No demand was afterward made on the maker, nor notice given to the indorser, lielcl, that the indorser had waived a legal demand and notice, and was answerable to the holder." Shaw, J., in delivering the opinion, says: "And the court are of the opinion that when the indorser at, or shortly before the time when the note becomes due, says to the holder that an arrangement for its payment is about being made, and in direct terms, or by reasonable implication, requests the holder to wait and give time, it amounts to an assurance that the note will be paid, that the promisor or indorser will pay it, and is a waiver of demand and notice. It tends to put the holder off his guard, and induces him to forego making a demand at the proper time and place, and it would be contrary to good faith to set up such want of demand and notice, caused, perhaps, by such forbearance, as a ground of defense."
Counsel for plaintiff in error cite Cayuga Bank v. Dill, 5 Hill, 403, and it must be admitted that the case is much like the one before us, but decided adversely to the views here advanced. Cowen, J., dissented, and Daniels says of the case: " The court was divided, and the decision has been justly criticized and condemned." 2 Daniels, § 1107. Parsons says: " The opinion of Cowen, J., is clearly the better." 1 Parsons, 592, note g.
The question to be determined is whether, upon a fair construction of Boyd's conduct, it was calculated to mislead a reasonable person, to put him off his guard, and to induce him to forbear taking the necessary steps to charge the indorser. We think Weil fairly represented Boyd to- the bank, and these representations were affirmed to- be authentic on Mouday, when Boyd, upon being- told them by Griffith, answers that he will come and attend to it. This statement made to the bank, on Saturday, taken in eonnec tiou with the leaving of the new note with the officers of the institution, fairly led them to believe that Boyd would do what he said. Had he kept his word, and indorsed the note on Monday, the necessity of notice and protest was waived.
One who leads another to act upon the faith of statements made, can not escape the consequences which a silence upon such statements has occasioned.
Judgment affirmed.