AgencyDPFebruary32014

As to the judgment in favor of the dominican fathers

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: nk and the defendant liable for the obligation of a third person. ● As to the mortgage: ○ it was executed without the express marital consent which the law requires CA: not mentioned Issue: WON the husband (J.M. Poizat) acted within his authority as his wife’s agent? Held: NO. The husband was not authorized or empowered to sign the note in question for and on behalf of the wife as her act and deed, and that as to her the note is void for want of power of her husband to execute it. The same thing is true as to the real mortgage to the bank. It is admitted that on December 29, 1921, the defendant husband signed the name of the defendant wife to the promissory note in question, and that to secure the payment of the note, upon the same date and as attorney in fact for his wife, the husband signed the real mortgage in question in favor of the bank, and that 61 the mortgage was duly executed. Based upon such admissions, the bank vigorously contends that the defendant wife has not shown a meritorious defense. In fact that it appears from her own showing that she does not have a legal defense. It must be admitted that upon the face of the instruments, that fact appears to be true. To meet that contention, the defendant wife points out, first, that the note in question is a joint and several note, and, second, that it appears from the evidence, which she submitted, that she is nothing more than an accommodation maker of the note. She also submits evidence which tends to show: First. That prior to July 25, 1921, Jean M. Poizat was personally indebted to the Bank of the Philippine Islands in the sum of P290,050.02 (Exhibit H, page 66, bill of exceptions); Second. That on July 25, 1921, the personal indebtedness of Jean M. Poizat was converted into six promissory notes aggregating the sum of P308,458.58 of which P16,180 were paid, leaving an outstanding balance of P292,278.58 (Exhibits D, E, F, G, H and I, pages 75­80, bill of exceptions); Third. That on December 29, 1921, the above promissory notes were cancelled and substituted by a joint and several note signed by Jean M. Poizat in his personal capacity and as agent of Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas and as member of the firm J.M. Poizat and Co. In other words, that under...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online