Year: 1861

Decisions of the Supreme; Court OF the


State of Tennessee, at Knoxville, Sep-


tenaber Term, 1850.


The Bank of East Tennessee for the use, ks w. Hook.


This was an action of assumpsit, brought against
Hook as indorser Of bill Of exchange. Judgment
for the defendant appeal in 10 this court.
On the 10th Of August, 1856, the firm of james
Co., consisting Of Jesse ]. James and E. s. Mil
lsr) drew bill Of exchange for 81 $50 go at sixty
ohsnics' Bank Of Augusta, Ga. Acceptance was
waived the face Of the bin; and il endorsed
By Hook, for the accommodation Of the drawers,
and was discounted by the branch Of the Bank Of
East Tennessee st Chattanooga, and the proceeds
paid to the drawers


James, one of TIE drawers Of the bill, died before
lis maturity. The Cashier Of the branch bank at
Chattanooga was examined witness on the trial,
and stated in substance that at the request Of Bill
Ter, the surviving drawer Of the till, and for the
purpose Of preventing its appearing tbs list Of
Protested paper Of the Bank that Miller and
Hook were under protest, he agreed to re-
oeive another bill drawn by Miller and en-
dOrsed hy Hook. A bill was drawn and endorsed
accordingly and delivered to the Cashier, including
the amount Of the former bill with discount and in
tersst added dne st 60 days, and bearing date the
day Of the protest Of the other bill. The Cashier
expressly proves that this latter bill was not made



but was merely accepted fors time 10 save The cred
it of the parties as before stated sad that the
ey when paid was to be applied to the original
bill rs 49, -


The proof shows that Hook called ct the Bank and
endorsed the latter BILL but there is ezpres proof
that be had been informed Of the arrangement be-
tween Miller and the Cashier in regard to the mat
ter. Shortly sfsr the transaction the Bank Of East
Tennessee failed and the Cashier handed the ori-
ginal bill with the other assets Of the branch at
Chattanooga, to the sssguees Of the Bank, and
and regarding the new bin as belonging to Miller he
surrendered it up to him, no payment ever having
been made on either bill. rrr1.a


The original bill was afterwards transferred 10
the East Tennessee and Virginia Rsilrosd Company.
for whose use the suit was brought. Upon the
foregoing facts We think the judgment is errone-
Gus. There is no just foundation for the assump-
tion upon which the verdict and judgment we're
based that the contract for delay on the part Of the
Bank has operated 10 discharge the endorser Hook


In the first place, although there is no positive
evidence that Hook had knowledge of, and esseHted
to the arrangement, yet the circumstances are per-
hsps amply su eient to warrant the inference that
he knew CT and assented to it.


But this consideration aside, the arrangement OBJ
viously.wss an nunauthorzedone on the part Of the
Cashier and Of no binding obligation upon the Bank
unless it msde 10 appear that the Bank either
previously sanctioned, subsequently, ratified it,
which does not appear in the record. And further
more, it was an agreement unsupported By any
consideration which the Law would recognize.


The Bank was perfectly at liberty any time after
this arrangement to have enforced payment Of the
first bill By Hook, whose liability had been fixed,
by the dishonor of the paper in due form if no
such thing had taken place.
Miller was clearly an incompetent witness by
Of interest in the event Of the suit; but this
objection seems to have been waived on the trial.


Judgment reversed.


A true copy. kckISSEY.
WM. R. CAswKLL, Clerk. a @