Court Opinion

ID: 6241268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:45:21.411964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:12.281877
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
No question arises as to the legal propriety of the interlineation, and the addition to the original form of the obligation in question, and it must therefore be read as an entirety, and as all made at the time of execution. Read in this way, every kind of liability created by the instrument became subject to the operation of the agreements of July 24th, and August 8,1872. The principal sum of the note was to be paid, with interest, on the 24th day of July, 1876. But this payment was to be subject to the two agreements mentioned. The entire principal and all the interest for the whole term of the obligation were, therefore, to be paid subject to the agreements. By the addition, “interest payable semi-annually,” the times of payment of the interest were changed so that the interest was to be paid at intervals of six months, instead of at the maturity of the note, but that was the whole of the effect of the added words. The time, only, of the payment of interest was changed. The duty to pay interest was still the *159same. The interest was to be paid in either event, distinctively as interest, but in any event it was only interest, and the legal duty of the maker was payment only.
But the whole duty of payment under the contract of July 24, 1872, was qualified. It was subject to the condition that if actual payment was not made, the obligee was to look only to the security of the stock which had been transferred to the obligor. And the obligee expressly waived, “ all right to proceed at law or otherwise against any other property or properties whatsoever of any description, belonging, or which may belong, to the maker of said note remaining unpaid, for the satisfaction of the same.” The plain meaning of this agreement undoubtedly is that whatever remained unpaid of the note at its maturity was to be collected exclusively out of the transferred stock. The obligee expressly waived all right to proceed against any other property “whatsoever” of the obligor, to enforce the payment of any money due under the obligation. The waiver was co-extensive with every duty of payment arising from the instrument. How could we possibly say otherwise when the contract of the parties does not say so ? There is no distinction in the agreement in this respect between interest accruing every six months and interest accruing during the whole period. If the obligee did not collect his semiannual payments, they simply remained unpaid, and were a constituent part of the entire sum of principal and interest due at the maturity of the paper. As such, the interest was simply a part of the gross sum due, and was to be collected in the same way as the principal. We are clearly of opinion that the case was correctly decided by the learned court below.
Judgment affirmed.