Hannum v. Richardson, 48 Vt. 508

Hannum v. Richardson

48 Vt. 508 | Vt. | 1875

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Pierpoint, Ch. J.

It may be observed in the outset, that this action is not brought by the plaintiff as the indorsee of the note referred to against the defendant as the indorser, and the action is not based upon the indorsement, but is brought upon an alleged *510warranty by the defendant that the note was a valid and binding note, based upon a valid and lawful consideration, when in fact it was given for an illegal consideration, and was at its inception void. On trial the plaintiff introduced evidence in support of his declaration. After the evidence was in, the defendant insisted that as it appeared from the note that it was indorsed by the defendant “ without recourse,” the legal effect of the indorsement could not be varied or controlled by evidence outside of the indorsement itself — that the same was conclusive in that respect; but the court held that such indorsement was not of itself conclusive of its legal effect in such sense as to exclude the evidence aliunde ; and submitted the case to the jury in accordance with such ruling, and it is upon this decision and the charge of the court in respect to it, that the only question that has been raised and discussed by the defendant’s counsel arises.

What would have been the effect of this objection if the action had been based, upon the indorsement, it is not necessary now to inquire. By indorsing the note “without recourse,” the defendant refused to assume the responsibility and liability which the law attaches to an unqualified indorsement, so that in respect to such liability, it may perhaps be regarded as standing without an indorsement. If it be so regarded, then in what position do these parties stand in respect to the transaction ? The principle is well settled, that where personal property of any kind is sold, there is on the part of the seller an implied warranty that he has title to the property, and that it is what it purports to be, and is that for which it was sold, as understood by the parties at the time ; and in such case, knowledge on the part of the seller is not necessary to his liability. The implied warranty is, in this respect, like an express warranty, the scienter need not be alleged or proved. Edwards, in his work on Bills and Promissory Notes, 188, says: “One who transfers a negotiable instrument by delivery or by indorsement, impliedly guarantees that it is genuine, and that he has title to it. The rule is the same in regard to personal property. The vendor of a chattel always gives an implied warranty of the title. 15 Johns. 240; 6 Cow. 484; 4 Duer, (N. Y.) 191; 6 Johns, 5. Though the indorser transfers *511the note upon condition that it is to be collected at the risk of the indorsee, he is, nevertheless, responsible if the note proves to be a forgery.” Edwards, 289.

In this case the note in question was given for intoxicating liquor sold in this state in violation of law, and therefore was void at its inception ; in short, it was not a note, it was not what it imported to be, or what it was sold and purchased for ; it is of no more effect than if it had been a blank piece of paper for which the plaintiff had paid his fifty dollars. In this view of the case we think the defendant is liable upon a warranty that the •thing sold was a valid note of hand.

The plaintiff has declared as upon an express warranty. If he could prove one, very'well; if he could not, the implied warranty is just as available to him, the declaration being according to its legal effect.

This view of the case relieves it from all embarrassment growing out of the question as to the admissibility of parol testimony to vary the indorsement, as the effect of the indorsement is really not involved in the case. And the ruling and charge of the court were really more favorable to the defendant than he had the right to ask.

The exceptions to the overruling of the motion in arrest were waived. The exceptions to the refusal to set aside the verdict as against the evidence, this court refuses to hear, the decision of the County Court being conclusive in such cases.

Judgment affirmed.