Dolph v. Stubblefield

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought under the Speedy Judgment Act applicable to the City of Baltimore by the appellee, the endorsee or holder, against the maker, of the following, promissory notes: “1,000. • Baltimore, Md., November 24, 1916. “Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of myself one' thousand dollars at Baltimore, Md., with interest at 6 per cent, from date. Value received. “Fred A. Dolph, “Calvert Building, “Baltimore, Md.” Endorsed: “Fred A. Dolph, “For value received Ave hereby jointly and severally guarantee the payment of the within mentioned note; and also hereby jointly and severally Avaii'e demand, protest and notice of non-payment hereof. “Wm. J. Murphy, “Anna C. Murphy, “Wm.

Bevan, “Susie R. Bevan, “Herman A. Rehling, “Louisa Rehling, “H. T. Weber, “James F. Davis, “H. S. Robinson, U “T. W. Stubblefield.” ¹⁴⁹ “1,000. Baltimore, Md., November 24, 1916. “Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of myself one thousand dollars at Baltimore, Md., with interest at 6 per cent, from date. Value received. “Fred A. Dolph, “Calvert Building, “Baltimore, Md.” Endorsed: “Ered A. Dolph, “For value received we hereby jointly and severally guarantee the payment of the within mentioned note; and also hereby jointly and severally waive demand, protest and notice of non-payment hereof. “Wm. J. Murphy, “Anna C. Murphy, “Wm.

Bévan, “Susie R. Bevan, “Herman A. Rehling, “Louisa Rehling, “H. T. Weber, “James E. Davis, “H. S. Robinson, “T. W. Stubblefield.” The declaration contained the common counts in assumpsit and a special count on each of the notes. The defendant filed the general issue plea, and in his affidavit thereto admitted that $1,344.00 of the claim was due and owing, and stated that $656.00 was disputed. Judgment was entered for the amount admitted to be due by the plea, and issue was joined as to the amount disputed. Thereafter the defendant by leave of Court filed the following additional plea, on which issue was joined: “That on the 24th day of November, 1916, defendant sent to plaintiff two notes of one thousand dollars each, with the understanding that said notes were to be discounted by plaintiff; that plaintiff gave to defendant only thirteen hundred dollars, and refused to ¹⁵⁰ pay more; that defendant then tendered to plaintiff the entire sum advanced, with interest, and demanded the return of notes, which plaintiff refused; and that the amount disputed in this case is usurious interest demanded on said loan and retained by plaintiff from the amount of said notes.” The trial of the case resulted in a judgment in favor of ■the plaintiff for $780.89, from which this appeal was taken.

The plaintiff, Thomas W. Stubblefield, testified that he was .the holder of the two notes, and the notes were offered in evidence. Harry S. Robinson, a witness for the defendant, then testified that he endorsed the notes and disposed of them to the plaintiff under the following’ agreements: “For and in consideration of the sum of eight hundred dollars ($800.00) I hereby agree to sell to Thomas W. Stubblefield one certain promissory note for $1,000 made at Baltimore, Maryland, dated Hovember 24, 1916, signed by Fred A. Dolph (as myself), endorsed by said Fred A. Dolph and said note endoi’sed and guaranteed by the following parties: Win. .1. Murphy, Anna C. Murphy, Wm. Bevan, Susie R. Bevan, Hexman A. Rehling, Loxdsa Rehling, H. T. Weber and James F. Davis.

Out of said $800 the sum of $600 to be paid to me immediately upon the execution .and delivery of this agreement, the x’enxaining $200 is to be held by the said Thomas W. Stubblefield until the said note is paid in full. Should the said Thomas W. Stubblefield have to enter suit or have to pay attoi’neys’ fees or other costs for the collection of said note in that event I waive all right in and to the said $200. If said note is paid in full at maturity the said $200 held by the said Stubblefield is to be paid to me. (This $200 has no reference to the $200 which I allow the said Stubblefield off of said $1,000 xxote.) I further certify that I anx the owner and holder of said note and that same was given to xne for salary indebtedness due to me by the parties to same. “Witness my hand axxd seal this 13th day of December’, A. D. 1916.

H. S. Robinson ” ¹⁵¹ “In the presence of: “G. A. Street. “Agreed to: “T. W. Stubblefield, “Room 210 Colorado Building, “Washington, D. C.” “For and in consideration of the sum of eight hundred dollars ($800.00) I hereby agree to sell to Thomas W. Stubblefield one certain promissory note for $1,000“ made at Baltimore, Maryland, dated November 24, 1916, signed by Fred A. Dolph (as myself), endorsed by said Fred A. Dolph, and said note endorsed and guaranteed by the following parties: Wm. J. Murphy, Anna C. Murphy, Wm. Bevan, Susie R. Sevan, Herman A. Rehling, Louise Rehling, H. T. Weber and James F. Davis. Out of said $800 the sum of $700 to be paid to me immediately upon the execution and delivery of this agreement, the remaining $100 is to be held by the said Thomas W. Stubblefield until the said note is paid in full.

Should the said Thomas W. Stubblefield have to enter suit or have to pay attorneys’ fees or other costs for the collection of said note, in that event I waive all right in and to the said $100. If said note is paid in full at maturity the said $100 held by the said Stubblefield is to be paid to me. (This $100 has no reference to the $200 which I allow the said Stubblefield off of said $1,000 note.) I further certify that I am the owner and holder of said note and that same was given to me for salary indebtedness due to me by the parties to same. “Witness my hand and seal this 16th day of December, A. D. 1916. “H. S. Robinson. “In the presence of: “C. H. Heely. “Agreed to: “T. W. Stubblefield, “Room 210 Colorado Building, “Washington, D. C.” ¹⁵² When asked by counsel for defendant if Mr. Bracey’s name was mentioned in the transaction, the witness replied: “I remember now that it was because Mr. Bracey’s name was mentioned because Howie Mining Company’s name was mentioned and I further remember when I left Mir. Stubblefield I told him that the $300.00 that was left sort of in escrow he was to pay to Mr. Bracey and he said he didn’t know Mr. Bracey in the transaction and I would have to give Mr. Bracey an order on him for the money.

I remember that now. When I was testifying the other day I didn’t recall that. It has been two years ago.” He further stated: “That was to go to Mr. Bracey provided the notes were paid at maturity; and the $300.00 was to stand for the expenses of a suit. *. * * I don’t recall what was said about him (Mr. Bracey) further than that the money was to go to him — this $300.00 that was put up in escrow we will call it was to go to Mr. Bracey if the notes were paid at maturity. * * * I offered one of these notes first. In that note I was to take out what was coming to me and in two or three days I went back with the other note and asked Mi*.

Stubblefield if he would take that on the same basis, and he agreed to take that on the same basis, excepting he Would only require $100.00 more for escrow we will call it, making $300.00 in all for the two notes, and I signed the second agreement. * * * That the purpose of drawing these agreements was to show where the $300.00 — $200.00 in one note and $100.00 in the other note>— were to be paid and why that was held out. I felt as if I was the owner of the first note. The second note I was not the owner* of all of it. In a sense I was not the owner of either one. * * * I said here I was the owner of the first and I considered I was the owner because there was $750.00 due me and after* deducting the discount according to Mr. Stubble-field’s requirement it left only $600.00.

So I felt I was justified in claiming that I owned that note.” When asked if he told the plaintiff that Mr. Bracey owned the note, he replied: “I don’t think there was any question that he knew that Mr. ¹⁵³ Bracey was the owner of the notes, but the first noto I claimed I had so much in. it was practically my note. Mr. Stubble-field explained to me that he only bought notes in the District of Columbia as under the law* he could not loan money and he could only purchase them.” He was asked by counsel for the defendant what discussion between him and the plaintiff brought about the execution of the agreement, and whether when he Went in the plaintiff’s office the plaintiff “pulled the agreement on him the first time,” and the witness replied: “Ho, these were written, up in his office. * * * The purpose of these two agreements was the disposition of the escrow money. There was, no question about that.” He said he read the agreement himself, and when asked if he, witness, said anything about the sale of the paper when he read the agrees meant, he said: “Ho, that was all agreed to'beforehand, everything was agreed to. I took it for granted that Mr. Stubble-field put that