Case Name: Church v. Swope
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1882-01
Citations: 38 Ohio St. 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: Church v. Swope.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 38
Pages: 493–496

Head Matter:
Church v. Swope.
1. If the drawee of a bill of exchange is without funds of the drawer, and pays the bill, he is entitled to be reimbursed by the drawer; and if there ar-e several drawers, part of whom are securities for the others, all are alike liable to reimburse the drawee in the absence of any understanding to the contrary.
2. Where a bill of exchange is made payable to S., and at the time of its execution C. signs his name on the back, he becomes a party to the request upon the drawee to pay the bill; and in an action by the drawee to recover the amount paid in taking up the bill, C. is to be regarded as a drawer.
Error to tbe District Court of Huron county.
The original action was brought by the firm of Swope & Hughes, against "William "W. Bissell, individually, and Charles H. Church, Joshua B. Bissell and William W. Bissell, composing the firm of Church, Bissell & Co., to recover money paid by the plaintiffs as drawees of a bill of exchange, at the request of the defendants. The following is a copy of the bill of' exchange:
“ $350.00. No. 1092. Church, Bissell & Co., Produce Dealers. , “New London, O., Dec. 8, 1874.
“ Pay to the order of M. H. Smith, cashier, three hundred and fifty dollars, value received, and charge to account of
“ W. W. Bissell.
“ To Swope & Hughes, ) Buffalo, N. Y. \
w , , „ No Protest
"Written on the back was, “ Church, Bissell & Co.
“ M. H. Smith, C’r.”
This bill, without the indorsement of “M. H. Smith, c’r,” was discounted at the Bank of New London, of which Smith was cashier, and the proceeds were placed to the credit of Church, Bissell & Co. By an arrangement between Church Bissell & Co. and W. W. Bissell, the proceeds were used by the former for the latter’s benefit. At the time of drawing the bill it was expected that the drawees would be put in funds to pay it by a lot of sheep, which W. W. Bissell was about to ship to them for sale. Bissell accompanied the sheep, and had them taken to Albany, New York, instead of stopping with them at Buffalo. After having sold the sheep at Albany, he returned with the proceeds to New London, and paid Church, Bissell & Co., as he testifies, the money to be remitted to Swope & Hughes, to refund to them the amount they had paid in honoring the bill, which remittance they refused to make, and credited jthc amount thus paid to his account.
The testimony on behalf of Church is to the effect, that the payment thus made was only $340. Testimony was also given, on behalf of plaintiffs, tending to show, that on a settlement between W. W. Bissell, and Church, Bissell & Co., the latter recognized their liability to pay Swope & Hughes, and agreed to do so.
There was no evidence of prior dealings between the defendants and plaintiffs, nor on whose credit, or request, the bill was paid by the plaintiffs, except as is to be implied from the instrument itself.
The case was tried to the court, which found for the plaintiffs. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and a bill of exceptions taken embodying the evidence. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, which on error was affirmed by the district court. It is now sought to reverse these judgments.
G. T. Stewart, for plaintiffs in error.
FrcmMin Sawyer, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
White, J.
We find no error in the court rendering judgment for the plaintiffs.
Where a drawee is without funds of the drawer of a bill of exchange, and pays the bill, he is entitled to be reimbursed by the drawer for the money thus paid ; and if there are several drawers, part of whom are sureties for the others, all are alike liable to reimburse the drawee.
The principle is thus stated in Nelson v. Richardson, 4 Sneed, 307: The surety drawer of a bill of exchange becomes chargeable with every obligation and liability which the law imposes upon the principal, as well those that are implied by law as those that are expressed; and this is so in regard to all the parties, the drawee or acceptor no less than the payee indorsee or holder of the bill. When the drawee pays the bill without funds of the drawers, the relation between the parties is reversed; the drawee, instead of being a debtor, becomes the creditor of the drawer for the money advanced, and may recover the same of such surety drawer, not, indeed, upon the bill itself, but upon his implied promise to reimburse the drawee. To the same effect are Dickerson v. Turner, 15 Ind. 4; Swilley v. Lyon, 18 Ala. 552. See, also, Story on Bills, § 420; Daniel on Neg. Ins. § 95.
The question in the present case is, in what character did Church, Bissell & Co. sign the hill ? They, by signing their name upon the bill at the time of its execution, filled up as it was, became parties to the request upon the drawees to pay the amount named in the bill to Smith, the payee. The payee can only regard them as drawers of the bill, chargeable alike with W. W. Bissell as such drawers. By signing on the back, they may have evinced, as the fact was, that they were sureties of Bissell. Nevertheless they were drawers, and, being drawers, as respects the payee, they must also be drawers as respects the drawees. The essential element of a drawer is that he is an original party to the request upon the drawee to pay the bill. If W. W. Bissell is regarded as sole drawer of the bill, Church, Bissell & Co. would be strangers to it, and could not be indorsers of the bill, to the payee; hence their true relation to the bill must be that of drawers, and thus equally bound with Bissell to furnish funds to meet it. It can be no more said that the drawees would have paid the bill without the names of Church, Bissell & Co. than it can be said that the bank would have discounted the bill without their names.
The fact that the name of Church, Bissell & Co. was written on the back of the bill instead of on the face, does not preclude their being regarded as drawers. Penny v. Innes, 1 Cr. M. & R. 439.
Judgment affirmed.