This case was heard at the September Term, 1880, Ross, J., presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, in two special and the general counts. Pleas, the general issue, and Statute of Limitations. Replication, similitur to the general issue, and to the plea of the Statute of Limitations, a general traverse that the cause of action did accrue within six years, &c. The declaration, pleas and motions were part of the exceptions.

The plaintiff introduced in evidence a promissory note dated March 18,1869, signed by Benjamin P. Huff, John Huff and the defendant. It appeared that the defendant and said Benjamin F. and John Huff were brothers. The plaintiff also introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant did not sign the note in question at its date, nor when it was originally executed and delivered, and was in no wise a party to the note, or to the transaction of the giving of the note until after the year 1875. The plaintiff testified as follows :

I had been pressing for payment of Benjamin E. Huff. I had promise of payment from him on several occasions ; didn’t get it. I was pressing for payment or better security. Benjamin E. Huff got him (the defendant) to sign it. I did not see him sign it.

And this was all the evidence which was introduced bearing upon the question how the defendant came to sign the note, if he signed it as the plaintiff claimed, or upon the question of there having been any consideration for such signing by the defendant. There was no evidence introduced tending to show that the plaintiff had ever threatened Benjamin F. with a suit upon the note, or that any further time, or forbearance to sue, had been promised in consideration of the defendant’s signing the note. The plaintiff’s testimony also tended to show that after the defendant signed the note in question, he had on two or three occasions said to the plaintiff, in speaking of the note, “ That his brothers ought to be good for it, and he would see them and have it fixed up.” The testimony was uncontradicted, and no question was made but that when the defendant signed the note, it had been kept alive by endorsements, and was in full force against Benjamin E. Huff, nor was any question made but that John Huff was liable thereon.

The defendant’s evidence tended to show that he signed the note as surety for his brothers at the time of its date, and that he had never since that time had anything to do about it, or in any way promised to .pay it. No evidence was given of any renewal of the note, by new promise or otherwise, by the defendant if he • signed it when it was originally made and dated, and it was treated by both parties, and by the court, without objection on the trial, as barred by the Statute of Limitations, if the defendant signed it when it was originally given.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress