Boynton v. Pierce

Citations

• 79 Ill. 145

Syllabus

<p>1. Guarantor —party presumed to be, whose name is written, on the back of a note not payable to him. Where the name of a party not the payee is found written on the back of a note, it will be presumed, in the absence of explanatory evidence, that he placed it there at the time of making the note, and that he indorsed it as guarantor.</p> <p>2. Such an indorsement in blank is authority to the holder of the note to write over the signature anything that is consistent with the undertaking, and, as the undertaking is primarily that of a guarantor, it is proper for the holder to write a guaranty over the name on the back of the note.</p> <p>8. In a suit on such a guaranty, where the defendant pleads the general issue, verified by affidavit, all that the plaintiff is required to prove is, the signature of the defendant.</p> <p>4. The rule would be different if the holder of a note, indorsed in blank by the payee, should write a guaranty over the signature, and bring suit on it as a guaranty. In such case, if the defendant should deny the guaranty, under oath, the burden of proof would be upon the plaintiff to show that a contract of guaranty was intended.</p> <p>5. Same —presumption that a party indorsing a note payable to another is a guarantor, may be rebutted by parol evidence. The presumption that a party not the payee, who places his name on the back of a note, is a guarantor, may be rebutted by parol evidence. The character of the liability-assumed may be explained and the legal presumption rebutted.</p>