Clopton v. Elkin

Citations

• 49 Miss. 95

Syllabus

<p>1. 3?SAto — sttsREPRBSEiíTATíoií.—Plaintiff in error sets up in liis plea that he and one J, H. Clopton, before the sale made by McAllister and Bramlett, administrators, informed them that they would become the sureties of Kendrick, for any amount of property he might buy at the public sale. That Kendrick’s purchase amounted to $1188.i5. That afterward, and before the execution of the note, Kendrick became indebted to the administrators otherwise, and not for property bough t at the sale, in the further sum of $i00. That the administrators included thoiiOOin the note sued on, and presented tho note to defendants, signed by Kendrick, and fraudulently and knowingly held the same out to defendants as for that sole con-. Bideratioh. That defendants being misled, and supposing that such was the only consideration, ignorantly signed the note. Meldt That the nóte, under this state of facts, is not voidable in fofo, but voidable to the amount of the excess. Goss & Hammond v. Whitehead, 33 Miss., 2Í3.</p> <p>2. PñEADING^-SKOMISSORY NÓÍE---AMOT}NT IUlPEOKEKLY INSERTED — -To render the note voidable, as to the surctios, for the excess, it is not necessary that Kendrick, them principal, should have participated in the fraud, and it is error to instruct the jury that the principal in the note must have combined With the administrators, of one of them, to perpetrate the deceit and imposition.</p> <p>3. Promissory note — interest.—‘The phrase 11 with interest at 8 per cent.,” in a note, implies interest from its date. 2 Parsons on Bills and Notes, 392.</p>