Snyder v. Findley

A. gave a note ofC. (knowing of his insolvency) to B. in payment of a debt; the transaction is fraudulent, and though B gives a receipt in full, the debt is not discharged. If assignor of a note assure assignee that the drawer is a man of ability, and would pay the note, and on the faith of this assurance assignee accepts it in payment of a debt, and the drawer at the time is insolvent, the receipt is vacated, and this whether the assignor knew, or did not know, of the falsity of his representations. The question of reasonable time left with the jury. Whether assigning a note amounts to a payment of a debt must depend on the contract; but if the note is lost by the laches of assignee it is a payment.

THIS was an action of indeb. assumpsit -brought to recover £90. the price of two horses which Snyder had sold to Findley. The defendant pleaded nil debet and non assumpsit, and in support of his defence gave in evidence a receipt dated August 26,1783, by which Snyder acknowledged to have received a note of Bartholomew Harris for £70. in full of the balance due him on die sale of two horses, which note he was to “ take at his own risk, and collect or lose the same without calling on Findley for the money.” The plaintiff then offered to prove that Harris the drawer of the note assigned in payment of the debt, was insolvent at the time: that Findley knew him to be so, and nevertheless asserted the note was good, and that if it was sent within a certain specified time to Philadelphia it would be paid. He further offered to prove that Harris had not been heard of in Philadelphia or in New-Jersey subsequent to the assignment. 1 st Its tendency was to alter a written instrument by parol evidence:,to destroy a higher proof by evidence of an inferior nature, Powell on Powers, pref. 3, 4. Meres v. Ansell. (a) %d The insolvency of Harris as now alleged, was if true a matter equally within the cognizance of both parties. If the plaintiff had intended to reserve to himself any right to come upon the defendant it was perfectly easy for him to have done so: he has given, however, a full acquittance which cannot be avoided by the concealment or false representation of any fact of which he should have previously informed himself, Carter v. Boehm, (b) 3d Here a complete discharge from the debt is shown, and the receipt in full is not attempted to be denied. If there be fraud in the transaction it may give a right to a new action, but cannot revive the old. The plaintiff has in express terms absolved the defendant from every kind of responsibility, and if this discharge has been obtained by fraudulent representations or improper means, it furnishes ground for an action of deceit. It is to be presumed, from the very terms of the receipt that Harris's ability was to be at risk of Snyder, he took all risks on himself. The contract appears to have been made two or three weeks before the acceptance of the note. The circumstances of the drawer were exclusively within the knowledge of the assignor, and if he represents him as solvent, his assertions ought to be founded in fact. To draw a bill when drawer has no effects in the hands ©f drawee is fraudulent,! T. i?. 408. 3 T. R. 713. The case from Burrows proves no further than that a fact, which is u a general topick of speculation” or a political event, need not fee disclosed, because it is supposed to be equally within the cognizance of both parties, and because different individuals frequently .deduce different inferences from the same fact. But in the same case Lord Mansfield says, that parties are obliged to disclose “ such facts as vary the nature of the contract, which one privately knows, and the other is ignorant of, and has no reason to suspect.” Where a party makes a representation, and asserts a fact as actually existing, he assumes upon himself the risk, and if the assertion proves to be false, it is fraudulent, Pawson v. Watson (a) Parke on Ins. 331. The evidence offered is not intended to vary a written, agreement, but merely to show that it was fraudulently obtained. The legal effect of an instrument, worded as this receipt, will not be questioned; our object is to show that it was given under circumstances which render it of no validity, Stratton v. Past all. (b) A receipt is not to be put upon the same footing with instruments solemnly executed^ it is never more than prima facie evidence of a discharge. Wherever there is either a suppressio veri, or suggeslia falsi the most solemn instruments will be invalidated, Jer '•jois v, Duke, (c) Dent v. Buck, (d) cited Price v. Neal, (a)