Case Name: Curtis Lewis, plaintiff in error, vs. Richard Wayne, adm'r, &c., defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1858-03
Citations: 25 Ga. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: Curtis Lewis, plaintiff in error, vs. Richard Wayne, adm’r, &c., defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 167–177

Head Matter:
Curtis Lewis, plaintiff in error, vs. Richard Wayne, adm’r, &c., defendant in error.
li. gives a mortgage to secure H. & H. for certain funds advanced by them for Mm, before that time, as well as to indemnify and save them harmless for any advances acceptances, or endorsements, made thereafter by the mortgagees for and on account of the mortgagor.
Held, That upon the production by mortgagees of drafts and acceptances, corresponding to the description of indebtedness, specified in the instrument that the presumption was that they had been paid by the holders out of their ownfunds^ and upon the credit of the mortgage and not out of the funds of the drawers.
Foreclosure of mortgage, from Spalding county. Decision by Judge Cabinéss, at November Term, 1857.
This was a proceeding by Richard Wayne, administrator' of Robert H. Griffin, deceased, assignee of Hamilton & Hardeman, to forclose a mortgage of a house and lot, executed' by Curtis Lewis to[said Hamilton & Hardeman.
The mortgage bears date 1st June, 1849, and was made by Lewis to secure Hamilton & Hardeman for certain funds, before that time, advanced, as well as to indemnifyand save them harmless for any advances, acceptances or endorsements, made thereafter by them for and on account of said mortgagor.
The usual rule ra'sijwas issued and served upon the mortgagor, who appeared and showed for cause why judgment absolute should'not be entered against him :
1. Because no copy of the mortgage deed is filed with the petition for foreclosure.
2. Because there is no averment in the petition that the mortgage has any¿words of negotiability or assignability, by which mortgagees were authorized to assign the same.
3. Because a mortgage deed assignable, must be assigned by an instrument or endorsement under the hand and seal of the mortgagee, and if not so assigned, any action thereon must be in the^name of the mortgagee for the use of the equitable owner oUholder thereof.
4. Because^there is no averment in the rule nisi, that the mortgage has been assigned in any way, verbally, or in writing.
5. Becausejjthere is no proferí made, in said rule, of the mortgage.
6. Because no averment or exhibit of debts due to or liabilities incurred by the mortgagee, is made either in the petition or rule.
7. Becausejthe drafts [alleged to have been accepted, bear .date after the execution of the mortgage.
S. There, is no allegation that the drafts accepted Avere .assigned, nor were the demands of the mortgagees assignable, the same being for money advanced and due, if at all, on account.
9. Because the drafts, copies of Avhich are annexed to the rule, Avere not the anticipated indebtedness and liabilities, Avhich the mortgage was intended to secure or indemnify against.
10. Because no part of the amount or sums claimed to be due, is secured, or was intended to be secured by the mortgage.
All of Avhich were overruled by the Court as insufficient, and defendant excepted.
Counsel for plaintiff, then offered in evidence, first, the copy mortgage, and then the original. Defendant objected on the ground that no profert or exhibit thereof was made in the rule served on him, nor filed in office. The objection was overruled and defendant excepted.
Plaintiff next offered in evidence his letters of administration 5 defendant objected on the ground that no profert thereof Avas made in the rule nisi, although made in the petition. The Court overruled the objection and defendant excepted.
Plaintiff then tendered in evidence the original drafts, copies of which were annexed to the rule, without proving that the drawees or mortgagees had paid or advanced the money on them. Defendant objected on the ground, that the legal presumption was that the drawer had funds in the ■ hands of the acceptor and drawee sufficient to pay the drafts, ' and the plaintiff must prove that they were paid out of the draAvees own funds, and then defendant became indebted for money paid and advanced, and not as drawer of the bills; The Court overruled the objection and defendant excepted.
The Court ordered the rule to be made- absolute, and defendant excepted.
Whereupon council for defendant tendered his bill of ex ceptions, assigning as error the rulings and decisions above excepted to.
Andrew R. Moore, for plaintiff in error.
Gartrell & Glenn, and Beck, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
I shall confine my opinion in this case to the only point about which the members of the Court had the misfortune to differ. '
The mortgage in this case, bears date 1st of June, 1849, and was made by Lewis to secure Hamilton & Hardeman, for certain funds before that time advanced, as well as to indemnify and save them harmless, "for any advances, acceptances or endorsements made thereafter by them, for and on account of said mortgagor." During the trial, the plaintiffs tendered in evidence the original drafts, copies of which were annexed to the rule, without proving that the drawees or mortgagees had paid or advanced the money on them. Defendant objected to them on the ground that the legal presumption was that the drawer had funds in the hands of the acceptor and drawee sufficient to pay the drafts, and the plaintiffs must prove, that they were paid out of the drawees' own funds, and then defendant became indebted for money paid and advanced, and not as drawer of the bills. The Court overruled the objection and the defendant excepted.
And now the only point about which we disagree is, was the Court right in ruling, that under the facts of this case, the burden of proof was shifted from the shoulders ©f the plaintiffs to those of the defendant? A majority of the Court hold, that the onus was changed, by the very tertns of the mortgage, as well as the nature of the transaction between these parties.
No one doubts that ordinarily, the rule of law is, as it was sked to be applied by the defendant in this case., namely 5 that if I accept for another person, the presumption is, that I have funds of his in my hands to discharge the draft, and it is incumbent upon me to show the contrary. But what is the express agreement between these parties ? Why that this mortgage which was sought to be foreclosed, was not only to secure Hamilton & Hardeman against past advances, but also to indemnify and save them harmless for any advances, acceptances, or endorsements made thereafter by them for and on account of the mortgagee. And they bring into Court and offer in evidence, paper, answering precisely to this description, acceptances made by them, for Mr. Lewis, after the first day of June, 1849. What more is there for them to do ? But says the defendant, you must show that you paid the money on these drafts out of your own funds, not out of mine! The ready response is, such was not our understanding, nor my understanding. In haec federa non veni. Our contract was that the mortgage was to cover all acceptances made for you after its date. Here are drafts drawn, accepted and taken up by me, since the mortgage was given. I claim the benefit of the bond. I am within its stipulations. You have no right to impose additional labor on me. If I had funds of yours in my hands, show it. You bargained that for all drafts and acceptances taken up by me, after the date of the mortgage, the presumption should be, that they were paid out of our funds. Still you have the right to rebut this prima facie case of liability on your park Failing to do so, I am entitled to foreclose the mortgage for the amount of these claims.
Not only are the words of the mortgage in favor of the plaintiffs, but the inference to be drawn from the nature of the transaction.
What did Hamilton & Hardeman look to for payment after the mortgage was given ? To funds to be furnished by Lewis ? Certainly not. The taking of the mortgage negatives this conclusion. Had they expected cotton or produce from him the mortgage would not have been taken. It was required, for the very reason, that they did not expect to be supplied with funds by the drawer. They were willing to advance for him, but they exacted indemnity. {They had even advanced when the mortgage was executed. This is admitted upon its face, for it was to secure past, as well as prospective advances.
But I will not spend more time upon a point which, to my mind is plain and palpable. I am of the opinion not only that the Court was right, upon every other exception, upon which1 error is assigned, and about which we all agree, but upon this also.
Judgment affirmed.