
    Jones v. Primm.
    Where two or wore join in a note for the accommodation of one or moro of them, leaving the name of the payee in blank, and the note passes to a bona fide holder for value before due, those who signed for the accommodation of the others cannot resist the payment of the note on the ground that they did not authorize any person to fill the blank for the purpose for which it had been used, or that it was without consideration passing to the defendants, or that they wore but sureties, or that ¿lio note was obtained by fraud, &e.
    Appeal from Austin. This suit was brought by tlie appellee upon a joint and several promissory note made by the appellant and two others and payable to the appellee.
    The defense set up was that tlie defendant did not sign the note sued on or authorize any person to sign it for him, but that ills signature was appended to a blank paper, and that'he did not authorize any person to fill it up for tlie purpose for which it had been used; that it was without consideration passing to this defendant; that he was but surely upon (lie note, and that it was obtained by fraud, &c. The defendant propounded interrogatories to the plaintiff, touching the truth of tiiese averments, and especially interrogating him as to his (plaintiff’s) authority to till up the blank over tlie defendant’s signature.
    From tlie answers of the plaintiff to the interrogatories it appeared (hat the paper was presented to him, with the signature in blank of the defendant and others, to be by him filled up to himself for a consideration passing to the other joint makers of the note, and that lie filled it up accordingly. The facts were that the other makers of the noto, G. W. & A. J. Reynolds, wished to purchase of tlie plaintiff provisions, which lie, doubting their solvency, declined to let them hare on their own sole responsibility; that lie was assured by this defendant that they were perfectly solvent, and that he might safely trust them; that subsequently they presented to the plaintUT the blank paper mentioned, with their signatures, and also that of the defendant, to be filled up to the plaintiff in consideration of the purchases made by them, which lie accordingly did fill up, and which was the note sued on.
    There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
    JV. H. Hunger, for appellant.
    
      JD. D. Atchison, for appellee.
   Wheeler, J.

The record presents but a single question which requires notice; and that is whether under the circumstances the note sued on was obligatory upon the defendant. And there can be no doubt that it was. The defendant intrusted his comakers of the note with his signature; and they having obtained credit upon the strength of it lie cannot shelter himself from responsibility up op the note in the hands of an innocent third party by alleging that the signature was not used for the purpose lie intended, or that lie did not especially authorize such third party to fill up the blank over his signature. Having intrusted his comakers with authority to use his signatura, if they had even abused that trust, of which there is no evidence, he must suffer the consequences of such abuse rather than an innocent third party. In such a case, if one should suffer loss, the maxim that he who trusts most must lose most is especially applicable. But here there is no evidence of any fraud or unfairness, or that the signature of tho defendant was not used in the manner and for the purposes intended. The defense set up does not appear to have been well founded ip law or fact, and we are of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  