Chaffe v. Taliaferro
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Copiah County. Hon. E. Gr. Peyton, Chancellor. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. It is to be observed that the complainant does not base her claim to relief on the ground that the $5,400 note or its proceeds was applied to existing indebtedness'of her son|instead of to future advances for him, but on the ground that she was to get the $1,441 note, and it was never transferred to her.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Copiah County. Hon. E. Gr. Peyton, Chancellor. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. It is to be observed that the complainant does not base her claim to relief on the ground that the $5,400 note or its proceeds was applied to existing indebtedness'of her son|instead of to future advances for him, but on the ground that she was to get the $1,441 note, and it was never transferred to her. Any argument founded on the idea that the surety here contracted to become liable for the future and not for the past, and that the application of her suretyship to…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, C. J.
Mrs. Taliaferro executed jointly with her son, Charles A. Taliaferro, a promissory note for $5,4=00 to the firm of Chaffe, Bro. & Son, of New Orleans, and secured payment of the same by a trust-deed upon her plantation, known as Spring Hill. The object of the transaction was to obtain advances of money and supplies from the New Orleans merchants to a business firm in Hazlehurst, of which her son was a member ; and as the amount which Chaffe, Bro. & Son might be willing to advance was uncertain at the time Mrs. Taliaferro signed the note, the amount to ■ be specified in it was left blank. She…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Harper v. LaceyMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
- Hermitage National Bank v. CarpenterTennessee Supreme Court · 1914