Dietrich v. Mitchell

Citations

• 43 Ill. 40

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignor—payee who assigns in Marik not a guarantor. An indorsement in blank ,by the payee of a promissory note does not authorize the indorsee, or other person, through whose bands the note may pass, to write a guaranty over such indorsement.</p> <p>2. Presumption—from indorsement in Manic, If the name of a-payee is found on the hack of a note, the presumption, in this State, in the absence of proof, is, that he placed it there'as assignor, with a view to assume the liabilities of an assignor under our statute. If it he sought to charge him as guarantor, the plaintiff must'show, that he contracted as guarantor.</p> <p>8. Hon est pactum—what it puts in issue. The plea, non est faetum, sworn to, denying a guaranty written over the name of the assignor, who is payee, of a promissory note, puts in issue, and casts upon the plaintiff the burden of establishing, that the assignor contracted as guarantor.</p> <p>4. Indorser—when presumed, a guarantor. A stranger,, who indorses a note in blank, at the time of its execution, is presumed to indorse as guarantor.</p> <p>5. Privileged communications—what are. An attorney cannot he compelled to testify as to whether a promissory note was indorsed when placed in his hands for collection. The privilege extends not only to what the attorney hears, but what he sees from his situation as attorney.</p>