Case Name: KINCH v. COLE et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1928-09-11
Citations: 133 Okla. 255
Docket Number: No. 18214
Parties: KINCH v. COLE et al.
Judges: MASON, Y. O. X, and HARRISON, LESTER, HUNT, and JHEFNER, JX, concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
KINCH v. COLE et al.
No. 18214.
Opinion Filed Sept. 11, 1928.
Rehearing Denied Dee. 4, 1928.
George L. Burke, for plaintiff in error.
Wallace & Wallace, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
RILEY, J.
This proceeding in error is a counterpart to cause No. 18315, Cole v. Kinch, 134 Okla. 262, 272 Pac. 1017, and the statement of facts thene is considered in augimen-tation of the facts here stated.
A promissory note of the date of September 20, 1920, was executed by W. J. Cole and delivered to E. T. Creegan, guardian of the estate of William McKinley Clayton, minor, for a consideration of $2,500, paid to the maker. The due date was January 10, 1921, interest at 10 p'er cent, per annum. The guardian was having some trouble with the county court on account of the overdue note not having been paid and about that time, on solicitation of the guardian, defendant S. G. Smith endorsed the note as follows: "Payment guaranteed, S. J. Smith." The guardian was paid for the note and suit was entered by assignee upon the note and recovery had against the principal, and that judgment affirmed in the companion' case. Judgment was for defendant Smith in the court below, from which the. plaintiff appeals hereby.
The judgment below absolved Smith from liability on the note for the evident reason that there was no consideration binding upon him for his endors'ement. Smith signed the note at payee's request long after maturity in consideration of the fact that payee represented that such indorsement would be an accommodation to him. Such indorsement was also in view of tlie fact of a pledge of six United States Liberty Bonds of tbe par valu'e of $3,000 to secure tbe debt of $2,500 represented by tbe note.
From our review of tbe evidence, we cannot say tbe trial court committed error in its view that Smith was solely an indorser without .consideration to himself or the maker of tbe note, or anyone except tbe payee, cnerefore, we affirm tbe judgment under tbe rule in First Nat. Bank of Poteau v. Allen, 88 Okla. 162, 212 Pac, 597.
MASON, Y. O. X, and HARRISON, LESTER, HUNT, and JHEFNER, JX, concur.