SHULL v. GLADDEN et al

Messrs. McDonald McDonald, for defendant-appellant, submit: Appellant was not a comaker of the note, but merely an indorser thereon: Uniform Negotiable Instrument Act, sections 63 and 64; 28 Stats. at Large, p. 678; 91 S.E. 801; 77 Ohio St. 311; 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 842; 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 847; 106 S.C. 472; 90 S.E. 866. Messrs. John W. Crews and G. Duncan Bellinger, for respondent, submit: That under section 63 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act (28 Stats. at Large, p. 678), the capacity in which W.M. Gladden signed the note could be shown by parol, and it was within the province of the presiding Judge to determine, under the evidence submitted, the true capacity of appellant. The fact the respondent alleged in his complaint that appellant was an endorser instead of alleging that he was a comaker does not limit the action to that of one against appellant as an indorser: 106 S.C. 472 ( 911 S.E. 866). As to waiver of notice of protest: Negotiable Instruments Act, sec. 109; 14 S.C. 250.