Croskey v. Skinner

Citations

• 44 Ill. 321

Syllabus

<p>1. Promissory note — assignment and guaranty. The rule is firmly established, that the holder of commercial paper with a general indorsement may fill it up with any contract consistent with such paper, and in accordance with the agreement of the parties when the indorsement was made. Also, such indorsement may be filled up at any time before or at the trial. The contract of assignment and that of guaranty are not the same, but different.</p> <p>2. Same. On the contract of assignment, the indorser is liable only in the event that the money cannot be made by legal proceedings against the maker; while, under the contract of guaranty, he becomes liable if the money is not paid according to the terms of the guaranty.</p> <p>3. Assignment—alteration of. Where a holder fills up a general indorsement with both an assignment and a guaranty, and the indorser files a pica denying the guaranty, verified by oath, the holder may abandon his claim to a recovery under the guaranty, and, upon proper proof of diligence or insolvency, recover on the assignment; and, when the question of authority to write the guaranty is withdrawn, the court will not, in the absence of evidence, presume that it was unauthorized. Even if the wrongful writing of a guaranty in such an indorsement could be held.to be an alteration of the contract of assignment and could have that effect, there must be evidence that it was wrongful. o</p> <p>4. Same. There being no doubt of the right to fill up the indorsement with an assignment, it is not perceived how filling in the guaranty could affect the assignment, whether authorized or not at the time. But if it could be so held, the court would not presume a want of authority in the absence of proof. It does not matter whether the assignment were filled up before or on the trial. The writing of an unauthorized guaranty over such an indorsement in no wise affects, alters or modifies the contract of assignment.</p>