This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: the power of attorney, the husband had no authority for and on behalf of the wife to
execute a joint and several note or to make her liable as an accommodation maker. That the debt in
question was a preexisting debt of her husband and of the firm of J.M. Poizat and Co., to which she was not
a party, and for which she was under no legal obligation to pay. That she never borrowed any money from
the bank, and that previous to the signing of the note, she never had any dealings with the bank and was not
indebted to the bank in any amount. That the old, original debts of her husband and J.M. Poizat and Co. to
the bank, to which she was not a party, were all taken up and merged in the new note of December 29,
1921, in question, and that at the time the note was signed, she did not borrow any money, and that no
money was loaned by the bank to the makers of the note.
Assuming such facts to be true, it would be a valid defense by the defendant wife to the payment of the
note. There is no claim or pretense that the bank was misled or deceived. If it had made an actual loan of
P292,000 at the time the note was executed, another and a different question would be presented. In the
ordinary course of its business, the bank knew that not a dollar was loaned or borrowed on the strength of
the note. It was given at the urgent and pressing demand of the bank to obtain security for the six different
notes which it held against J.M. Poizat and Co. and Jean M. Poizat of date July 25, 1921, aggregating about
P292,000, and at the time it was given, those notes were taken up and merged in the note of December 29,
1921, now in question. Upon the record before us, there is no evidence that the defendant wife was a party
to the notes of July 25, 1921, or that she was under any legal liability to pay them.
The note and mortgage in question show upon their face that at the time they were executed, the husband
was attorney in fact for the defendant wife, and the bank knew or should have known the nature and extent
of his authority and the limitations upon his power.
You will search the...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.
- Fall '14