Court Opinion

ID: 9535795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:44:16.696998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:20.375461
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The majority opinion states that the party accommodated by appellant was the corporation. This utterly ignores appellant’s affidavit which states in essence: “Affi-ant’s signature was affixed ... at the request of the officers of the then Aberdeen National Bank, presumably as a requirement of the bank taking assignment . . . from the plaintiff to the bank.... [A]t no time did affiant guaranty payment of said note to Brown County Coop.... Affiant’s signature on [the note] was simply an accommodation to the bank.” This statement was given considerable credibility in the affidavit of Marvin Peterson, officer of the First Bank, Aberdeen, formerly Aberdeen National Bank, wherein he states: “Where notes of this nature are executed by corporations such as defendant R-K Cattle Company, it is the policy of affiant’s employer, the bank, to require the signature of the officers of the corporation, as guarantors and defendant H. I. King was so advised by affiant; that Mr. King thereupon affixed his signature to the reverse side of said note as guarantor without hesitation or objection[.]” (Emphasis added.) Since the guaranty ran to the bank on the assignment by Brown County Coop, I would denominate the Coop as the accommodated party rather than the corporation. At the very best it is a question of fact that is in dispute and summary judgment should not lie.
The signature referred to as an endorsement in the majority opinion is the signature first referred to as an accommodation. Since the Coop had actual notice of the purpose of the signature it cannot improve its position by taking from the bank. SDCL 57A-3-201(l).
We are required to view the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party; in this case, appellant. Appellee’s own evidence, the Peterson affidavit, shows that at most appellant was a guarantor to the bank. When Brown County Coop purchased back the note, it was not a holder in due course under SDCL 57-12-2 or transferee under SDCL 57-11-1, and therefore not entitled to the benefits that the majority would accord it. The Coop had notice that the note was overdue and that appellant had signed as a guarantor to accommodate the Coop in negotiating the note to the bank.*
Had the bank proceeded against appellant there would be no question of his liability and summary judgment would have been appropriate. Under the circumstances *271in this case, however, I believe that summary judgment in favor of appellee was entirely inappropriate.
I would reverse and remand for a trial on the issues of accommodation and endorsement.

 Parol evidence is admissible to show the true status of the endorsers where the holder is not a holder in due course.