Case Name: Wynn vs. Poynter
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1867-12-14
Citations: 3 Bush 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wynn vs. Poynter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 54–57

Head Matter:
CASE 19 — PETITION ORDINARY —
DECEMBER 14.
Wynn vs. Poynter.
APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT.
1. The sale of a note implies a guarantee of its genuineness as to all apparent parties to it; but the holder is under an implied obligation to try, by due diligence, the liability as well as the solvency of the ostensible obligors, so as to hold the assignor liable, either as guarantor or vendor.
2. That there was no special guarantee dispensing with suit on the assigned note, and that there was not legal diligence in the prosecution of, the suit by the assignee or vendee as brought, are both deductions of law from the facts, and therefore there was no available error in the peremptory instruction to find for the defendant.
3. If, in a suit on an assigned note, the defendant pleads non est factum, and thereupon the plaintiff dismisses his action, he will not, for this reason, be entitled to recover against his assignor on his implied warranty of genuineness. The plaintiff ought to have tested the genuineness of the note by a verdict of a jury and judgment of the court.
Simpson, For Appellant,
CITED—
1 Dana, 612; 2 Dana, 168.
2 Marshall, 219 ; Scott vs. Scott.
4 B. Mon., 202; Chancellor vs. Wiggins.
Myers' Supplement, 741; Act of January 24, 1866.
C. Eginton, For Appellee.
John B. Huston, On same side,
CITED—
1 Mon., 104 — 5; Trimble vs. Well.
3 Mon., 63 ; Digest, Assignor and Assignee.
6 Mon., 542; Buller vs. Suddcth.
Myers' Sup., 741.

Opinion:
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion oe the court:
This appeal seeks the reversal of a judgment against the appellant in . an action on the guaranty of a note sold to him and indorsed with the name of the appellee as vendor. There is nothing in the record to authorize the presumption that the indorsement of the appellee's name on the note was intended to import more than an ordinary assignment; and this interpretation is fortified by the fact that the first petition sought a judgment against him as mere assignor or vendor, by the fact that his name was erased before the institution of the suit on the note, and by the fact that the appellant did not assert the appellee's liability as special guarantor of payment without suit against the obligors in the note until after he had ascertained, in the progress of this action, that laches had exonerated the appellee as simple indorser.
The sale of the note implied a guarantee of its genuineness as to all apparent parties to it; but the holder was under an implied obligation to try, by due diligence, the liability as well as the solvency of the ostensible obligors; and this has certainly never been done, so as to hold the appellee liable either as guarantor or vendor; that there was no special guarantee dispensing with suit on the note, and that there was not legal diligence in the prosecution of the suit as brought, are both deductions of law from the facts; and therefore there was no available error in the peremptory instruction to find for the appellee.
Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.