74 N.Y.S. 64 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1902
There is no substantial dispute as to the facts in this case. It seems that on August 14,1893, the defendant, a national bank doing business in the city' of New York, discounted for the plaintiff, doing business in the city of New York under the name of Marcial & Co., a promissory note for $4,786.62 made by one Ong and indorsed by the plaintiff who was the payee thereof. Prior thereto the defendant had discounted for the plaintiff a note for $8,000 payable on demand, and held as collateral security therefor 100 shares of the capital stock of the Central Car Company of Connecticut.. This note contained a provision that such collateral security should be applicable upon the same conditions to any other note or claim, whether matured or not, held by the bank against the plaintiff This Central Oar stock thus held as collateral was surrendered to the plaintiff, who substituted therefor thirteen bonds of a Wisconsin railroad company. The note for $8,000, to secure which these bonds were held by the defendant, was not paid, and the defendant, about January, 1899, sold the railroad bonds. The proceeds therefor were applied to the payment of the $8,000 note, and the balance, amounting to $1,469.06, was applied by defendant on account of the amount due on the Ong note, and the question to be determined is, whether the defendant had the right to make such an application.
When the Ong note became due it was not paid by the maker. Subsequently the defendant commenced an action against the maker of the Ong note in the State of Louisiana, where he resided, and in February, 1894, obtained a judgment against him for the amount due on the note. Thereafter the defendant sold and transferred this judgment to one Hiller for fifty per cent of the amount due thereon, and subsequently there was entered in the court in Louisiana, in which the judgment had been recovered, what was called an order of subrogation, by which it was ordered that “ A. Hiller be subrogated to all the plaintiff’s rights, claims and demands in and to the judgment therein against the defendant It. M. Ong,” of which Ong had notice. Under the law of Louisiana it would appear that
There can be no doubt, I think, but that the right of the defendant to recover from the maker of this note the amount due thereon was merged in this judgment. This judgment being in force, he could not maintain an action against the maker of the note based upon, his obligation to pay it. His sole right as against the maker was to enforce the judgment. The defendant was' the owner of this judgment into which had been merged the obligation of the maker of the note. The obligation ■ as against the plaintiff as indorser of the note, however, still continued, but upon his payment of the amount due on the note he was entitled to be subrogated to the right of the holder of this note to enforce the judgmeift against the maker, and this being the situation, had the defendant voluntarily transferred the judgment that it had obtained against the maker for the amount of the note to a third party, putting it out of its power to transfer-to the indorser the obligation of the maker upon
In Shutts v. Fingar (100 N. Y. 539) the court, speaking of the obligation of the holder of a note to an indorser, says: “ Upon payment of such obligation an indorser is entitled to demand its possession from the creditor, with the right of subrogation, to all securities and remedies possessed by him against the prior parties thereon unimpaired by any act or loches of such creditor.” And after discussing the authorities, the court continues: “ From the foregoing considerations it would seem to follow that, in order to sustain the contention of the respondent, we would be required to hold that an indorser remains liable upon a note after his principals have been discharged from their obligation upon it, and that his right of subrogation entitles him only to the possession of a security rendered worthless by the neglect of the creditor. Where such consequences are produced by the direct action of the creditor all of the authorities concur in holding that it constitutes a good defense to the indorser, and it is difficult to see why the same consequences produced by the deliberate loches and inaction of the creditor should not lead to the same result.”
The defendant, however, seeks to avoid the application of this principle by proving an oral understanding between himself and the transferee of the judgment, with the knowledge and assent of the judgment debtor, that the assignment of the judgment “ was made under the condition that the bank specially reserved all of its rights, claims and demands against the payees and indorsers of the note.” The circumstances under which this judgment was assigned or transferred was as follows: The maker of the note, having become insolvent, made an arrangement with his creditors in New Orleans to settle with them at twenty-five cents on the dollar of their indebtedness. The defendant refused to accept such conditions, and negotiations were then entered into between a representative of the defendant in New Orleans and one Alfred Hiller, who had agreed to advance to the maker of the note- the money necessary to secure this judgment, and it was finally agreed that the defendant should transfer this judgment to Hiller for fifty cents on the dollar upon the express condition that all rights of the defendant against the payee and indorsers of the note other than the maker should be
The defendant insists that, by this reservation of-the rights of the holder of the note against the other parties liable on it, the plaintiff’s liability as indorser continued, and the defendant was entitled to apply the amount realized upon the sale of the securities before mentioned to the payment of that liability. The principle upon which the defendant relies was first applied in this State in Stewart v. Eden (2 Caines, 121), in which it was held that where the holder of a note releases the maker, reserving, however, the liability of the indorsers, such a release did not discharge the indorsers. - And that principle has been adopted in cases' where one of two joint debtors, or one of two sureties is released by the creditor, when the instrument effecting the release contains such a reservation./i know of no case, however, where the release.itself was absolute upon its face, without any reservation against the other parties liable, that the creditor has been allowed to prove an oral understanding, made contemporaneously with or prior to the execution of the release reserving his right to enforce the obligation, as against the other parties liable thereon, as is sufficient to destroy the effect of the release of the principal, so far as it discharges the sureties.
In Morgan v. Smith (70 N. Y. 537). it was held that the defendant was not discharged by virtue of an agreement between the principal and creditor. This agreement, however, contained a provision that it was not to impair in any way the obligations between the parties in the premises, or.- impair or alter the security thereunder, nor in any wise to affect the relation of landlord and tenant-existing between, the parties, and the security for the rents and covenants thereunder. This was based upon the ground that the sureties had left to them all the rights they ever had to pay up the
Palmer v. Purdy (83 N. Y. 144), relied upon by the defendant to show that an agreement may be made by paroi, is certainly not an authority for that proposition. In that case the surety sought to be discharged in consequence of the acceptance by the creditor of a promissory note from the principal which it was claimed extended the time of payment so as to discharge the sureties; but it was held that the note was accepted upon the express stipulation that the liability of the other parties should not be released, and with the reservation of the rights and remedies of the plaintiff against the defendants. This agreement to extend was inferred from the delivery and acceptance of the note of the principal debtor by the creditor, but as a part of that transaction the effect of the receipt of the note was qualified by an express agreement or condition upon which tile note was delivered; and under these circumstances it was held that there was no extension in the time of payment by the receipt of the note, and what was said in Calvo v. Davies (73 N. Y. 211), that the agreement does not operate as an absolute,, but only as a qualified and conditional suspension of the right of action, and is treated in effect as if it was made in express terms subject to the consent of the surety, and the surety is not thereby discharged, was cited with approval. In Calvo v. Davies it was held that the sureties were discharged because by the agreement the right of the creditor to proceed at once against1 the principal debtor was postponed. In all of the cases to which our attention has been called, in which an exception to the general rule that any act of the creditor which tended to release the principal debtor from his obligation or changed the relation of the parties discharged the sureties, was
We do not think that the facts in this case bring it within the exception to the general rule which is sought to be applied by the defendant. As before stated, when the defendant obtained this judgment against the maker of the note, the obligation of the maker to the holder was merged' in the judgment; and,the only right of the defendant to enforce that obligation was the enforcement of the judgment, and this being the situation, the plaintiff had the absolute right upon the payment of the note to have the judgment against the maker of the note transferred to him, or that he be subrogated to the right of the defendant to collect the judgment. As was said in Shutts v. Fingar (supra), upon the payment of such obligation the indorsee is entitled to demand its possession from the creditor, with the right of subrogation to all securities and remedies possessed by him against the prior parties thereon, unimpaired by any act or loches of such creditor. While the judgment against the maker continued to be th'e property of the defendant, if the plaintiff came in and tendered the' amount of .the note to the defendant, the plaintiff would have been entitled to become subrogated to. the right of the defendant to enforce that judgment. By the act of the defendant in transferring that judgment to Hiller, the defendant has put it out of its power to comply with this obligation.; and from this it follows that the plaintiff was discharged.
I have discussed the question, assuming that the effect of- this transfer is to be determined by the law of the State of New York, and not by the law of the State of Louisiana; It would seem, however, that so far as .the .effect of the transfer of the judgment from the defendant to Hiller and its effect upon the obligations of the m aker of the note are concerned, as between the defendant and the
If, under the Louisiana law, this oral agreement limiting the effect of the transfer or subrogation of the judgment was invalid and could not be proved to bind the maker of the note, so that if the plaintiff should pay the balance due on the note he could not recover from the maker in Louisiana the amount that he had paid, it would seem that the defendant cannot take' advantage of the oral agreement to hold the plaintiff liable upon his indorsement; and it would seem from the evidence that, under the Civil Code of Louisiana, proof of this oral agreement would not be admitted. Article 2276 of the Louisiana Code was read in evidencé, and provides: “ Neither shall paroi evidence be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the Acts, nor on what may have been said before or at the time of making them, or since.” And the word “ Acts ” in this section of the Code would include such an order of subrogation as was here entered at the instance of the defendant. The liability of the plaintiff to the defendant upon this instrument is to be governed
It follows, therefore, that the learned referee was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs:
Van Brunt, P. L, O’Brien, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs!
