Court Opinion

ID: 9826215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:35:37.248465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:57.123833
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Watts.
I must dissent to the opinion of Chief Justice Gary herein. I think his Honor, the Circuit Judge, correctly laid down the law, and that the exceptions should be overruled, and the judgment affirmed. The maker of the note sued on and the indorsers' signed the note with intent to have some one discount it. A't that time the *77maker expected to get C. McDonald to discount the. note. After the maker and indorsers had signed the note and left it with the maker, he inserted the name of McDonald as payee. When he approached McDonald, he declined to discount the note. The maker then went to the plaintiff. The maker had never parted with possession of the note. The cashier of the plaintiff, with the consent of the maker, who was the owner and holder thereof, inserted the words “or bearer.” This was not a material alteration, and did not add to or substract anything from the negotiability of the note. When the maker signed the note in blank and the indorsers signed it in blank, it was their intention to have some institution or individual to discount the note, and they were bound to pay the same, and the addition of the words “or bearer” did not in any manner affect the negotiability of the note, and the addition of these words should not relieve the indorsers from their solemn obligation to pay the note. When the indorsers signed the note in blank, it gave the maker full authority to fill it in and put any words in he saw fit to make it negotiable. He put McDonald’s name in. He declined to discount it. The maker, still retaining it, went to plaintiff, and in order to satisfy plaintiff’s cashier inserted the words “or bearer.” If the words were necessary to render it negotiable, the maker had full authority to insert the words'. The indorsers having signed in blank and left it with the maker to do what was fit and necessary to get it discounted, and he putting McDonald’s name as payee first, and later with his consent as maker permitting the words “or bearer” to be inserted in order to get the money and actually receiving the money, the indorsers will not now be heard to complain and avoid the payment of an honest debt to the detriment of an innocent purchaser. This would not be in accord with morals' or law. The only question that could arise in the case would be who owned the note, the plaintiff or McDonald ? That issue is eliminated. McDonald makes no claim to the note, has actually signed it *78to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is in possession. That is prima facie evidence of ownership under Coleman v. Dunlap, 18 S. C. 594; Stoddard v. Hill, 38 S. C. 392, 17 S. E. 138; Talbert v. Talbert, 97 S. C. 143, 81 S. E. 644,
There is not such an alteration as to vary the note in any material particular so as to allow the indorsers to avoid its payment. They should be required to pay what they promised to pay. The maker only filled in the blank space so as to complete the instrument in order that he might get the note discounted and get the money which was the object of making and indorsing the note. It does not matter if he put McDonald’s name at one time and “or bearer” was allowed by him to be inserted at another. The indorsers signed the blank and allowed him to go off with the note. 'This action on their part gave the maker full authority to complete the instrument in full by filling in any words' necessary to negotiate the same, and nothing has been done that should relieve the indorsers.
Mr. Justice Gage concurs.