Citation Numbers: 40 Tenn. 389
Judges: Wright
Filed Date: 12/15/1859
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/30/2022
delivered tbe opinion of the Court.
Smith sued Drennon, by warrant before a Justice of the Peace, upon a note under seal, for thirty-five dollars, executed by him, on the 17th of December, 1855, payable to W. M. Carpenter, one day after date, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff, Smith. The case was taken to the Circuit Court by appeal, and upon the trial the defendant proved by one Nelson, that at the date of the note he was a Justice of the Peace of Wilson county, that Carpenter, to whom the note was payable, was a constable — that Carpenter came to his house and got some executions against Drennon, in favor of Witty— that at the time he procured the executions, he asked the witness if it would he any harm for him to make an arrangement with Drennon, by which Drennon should pay him for holding up the executions until he returned from a trip down the river with some timber. He told Carpenter he thought not. The defendant then offered to prove by this witness, that a day or two afterwards, Carpenter told him that he had taken Dren-non’s note for $30, or $35, and he had agreed to wait until he returned. This was objected to, and the objection sustained by the Coui't.
The defendant then proved by W. G. Robertson that he made a settlement between Drennon and Carpenter after Drennon’s return from his trip down the river, and that the executions in favor of Witty were settled and paid in that settlement, and that the note in controversy had not then been transferred. And he then offered to prove by this witness, that at the time of the settlement the note was spoken of, and it was agreed between Drennon and Carpenter, that it had been given in consideration that Carpenter would indulge Drennon on the executions in favor of Witty; but this was also objected to, and the objection sustained by the Court.
In these rulings of the Circuit Judge there is error. It is not contended that the proof offered, if believed, would not constitute a valid defence to the note, as between the maker and payee. And it cannot be maintained here, that the plain
But it is argued that it is a rule of law, founded on public policy, that no party who has signed or endorsed a negotiable paper, shall ever be permitted, by his testimony, to invalidate it, and'that, a fortiori, it must be so as to his declarations. It is sufficient for us to say, the established rule is otherwise in our State. Stump v. Napier, 2 Yer., 35, 50.
Reverse the judgment, and remand the case for another trial.