Crawford v. Richards

Markell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant, on a verdict directed on the ground of limitations, in a suit on four promissory notes of defendant, each payable one year after date, to the order of Millard F. Crawford, plaintiff’s intestate, one dated May 1, 1939 for $345, three dated May 1, 1940, for $1,400, $250 and $143 respectively. On the back of each note is endorsed an assignment by Crawford, dated April 2, 1941 (when the 1939 note was overdue), of “this note and interest due” to Elizabeth L. Crawford, and an undated assignment of the note by Miss Crawford “to the estate of Millard F. Crawford, deceased.” Crawford died on April 14, 1941. On September 21, 1942 his wife was appointed administratrix of his estate; on November 3, 1943 she died.

On September 20, 1945 plaintiff was appointed administratrix d. b. n. of his estate. This suit was instituted on September 21, 1945. This case was before us on a former appeal, which did not present the questions now presented. Crawford v. Richards, 193 Md. 236 , 66 A. 2d 483 .

In the instant case, as in the case just decided, No. 99, Crawford v. Richards, 197 Md. 284 , 79 A. 2d 141 , plaintiff contends that defendant cannot set up the defense of limitations because he was an express trustee. The 1915 and 1935 agreements mentioned in our opinion in No. 99 were offered by plaintiff, but the court refused to admit them in evidence. Defendant testified (when called by plaintiff) that the notes in suit were given to Crawford, “voluntarily on my part” and “not under this [1915] contract,” as a result of certain losses of ²⁹¹ Crawford on mortgage investments made through defendant. For the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 99 these agreements were not relevant and were properly excluded, and plaintiff’s contention as to an express trust is untenable.

Plaintiff admits that, apart from the contention which we have rejected in No. 99 and her claim of a new promise, the 1939 note would be barred by limitations, since limitations began running on May 1, 1940, before the assignment by Crawford, and therefore did not cease running. Ruff’s Adm’r v. Bull, 7 Har. & J. 14 . Plaintiff testifies that the notes were assigned to her only for collection, and she never had any other interest in them. She contends that, as assignee, she had a right to collect them only as agent for her father, that her agency and right to collect was revoked by his death (before maturity of the 1940 notes), and that limitations on the 1940 notes did not begin to run until appointment of the wife as administratrix.

Miss Crawford’s legal title to the notes assigned to her, and her right to sue on them in her own name, were not revoked by her father’s death. Under the assignment for the purpose of collection she was not a mere agent but took legal title as trustee for her father. Doxen v. Wagner, 142 Md. 441, 446 , 121 A. 254 . An agent to whom, in his own name, a negotiable instrument is by its terms payable, or is transferred, may sue on it in his own name.

Restatement, Agency, §§ 364, 365, comment c. Code, art. 13, sec. 14, 70. This right was not terminated by death of Crawford. Moore v. Hall, 48 Mich. 143 , 11 N. W. 844 .

In endorsing on the notes an assignment to her father’s estate, Miss Crawford apparently recognized that she individually had title and right to sue. Consequently, limitations began to run on the 1940 notes on May 1, 1941 and the notes were barred after May 1, 1944. Plaintiff also contends that the bar of limitations has been removed by a new promise. Defendant, called by plaintiff, testified that the notes had been signed by ²⁹² him and had not been paid.

Mr. Willis R. Jones, formerly counsel for plaintiff, had a conversation with defendant in 1944. He testified that these notes “were discussed along with several other things. * * * “Q. Did he offer to pay them? A.