Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-419 (2026)
Instruments signed for accommodation
✓ current as of July 2026
- (a) If an instrument is issued for value given for the benefit of a party to the instrument ("accommodated party") and another party to the instrument ("accommodation party") signs the instrument for the purpose of incurring liability on the instrument without being a direct beneficiary of the value given for the instrument, the instrument is signed by the accommodation party "for accommodation."
- (b) An accommodation party may sign the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser and, subject to subsection (d), is obliged to pay the instrument in the capacity in which the accommodation party signs. The obligation of an accommodation party may be enforced notwithstanding any statute of frauds and whether or not the accommodation party receives consideration for the accommodation.
- (c) A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party and there is notice that the instrument is signed for accommodation if the signature is an anomalous indorsement or is accompanied by words indicating that the signer is acting as surety or guarantor with respect to the obligation of another party to the instrument. Except as provided in Section 75-3-605, the obligation of an accommodation party to pay the instrument is not affected by the fact that the person enforcing the obligation had notice when the instrument was taken by that person that the accommodation party signed the instrument for accommodation.
- (d) If the signature of a party to an instrument is accompanied by words indicating unambiguously that the party is guaranteeing collection rather than payment of the obligation of another party to the instrument, the signer is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument to a person entitled to enforce the instrument only if (i) execution of judgment against the other party has been returned unsatisfied, (ii) the other party is insolvent or in an insolvency proceeding, (iii) the other party cannot be served with process, or (iv) it is otherwise apparent that payment cannot be obtained from the other party.
- (e) If the signature of a party to an instrument is accompanied by words indicating that the party guarantees payment or the signer signs the instrument as an accommodation party in some other manner that does not unambiguously indicate an intention to guarantee collection rather than payment, the signer is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument to a person entitled to enforce the instrument in the same circumstances as the accommodated party would be obliged, without prior resort to the accommodated party by the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
- (f) An accommodation party who pays the instrument is entitled to reimbursement from the accommodated party and is entitled to enforce the instrument against the accommodated party. In proper circumstances, an accommodation party may obtain relief that requires the accommodated party to perform its obligations on the instrument. An accommodated party who pays the instrument has no right of recourse against, and is not entitled to contribution from, an accommodation party.
Former § 75-3-419: Codes, 1942, § 41A:3-419; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 3-419; Laws, 1992, ch. 420, § 57; Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 23, eff. 7/1/2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1991–2004 · leading case: Delta Chem. & Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, 790 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
Delta Chem. & Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, 790 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “(4) An intermediary bank or payor bank which is not a depositary bank is not liable in conversion solely by reason of the fact that proceeds of an item indorsed restrictively (Sections 3-205 and 3-206) [§§ 75-3-205 and 75-3-206] are not paid or applied consistently with the…”
AmSouth Bank v. Gupta, 838 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2002). “2001); see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419(3) (affirmative defense to conversion claims is that bank acted within "reasonable commercial standards").”
Hancock Bank v. Ensenat, 819 So. 2d 3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419(3) (Rev.1981), replaced by adoption of 1992 Miss.”
Holifield v. BancorpSouth, Inc., 891 So. 2d 241 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419 (Rev.2002). We relied on the statute and caselaw that provides that the reimbursement *246 by the proper payee may be obtained from both a drawee and a collecting bank.”
Thigpen v. Allstate Indem. Co., 757 F. Supp. 757 (S.D. Miss. 1991). “Plaintiff brought the present action against Allstate, Magnolia Federal and Deposit Guaranty under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419(1) for the alleged conversion of the checks which were paid on his forged signature.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-419(1): 1 case
Thigpen v. Allstate Indem. Co., 757 F. Supp. 757 (S.D. Miss. 1991). “Plaintiff brought the present action against Allstate, Magnolia Federal and Deposit Guaranty under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419(1) for the alleged conversion of the checks which were paid on his forged signature.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-419(3): 3 cases
Delta Chem. & Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, 790 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “(4) An intermediary bank or payor bank which is not a depositary bank is not liable in conversion solely by reason of the fact that proceeds of an item indorsed restrictively (Sections 3-205 and 3-206) [§§ 75-3-205 and 75-3-206] are not paid or applied consistently with the…”
AmSouth Bank v. Gupta, 838 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2002). “2001); see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419(3) (affirmative defense to conversion claims is that bank acted within "reasonable commercial standards").”
Hancock Bank v. Ensenat, 819 So. 2d 3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-419(3) (Rev.1981), replaced by adoption of 1992 Miss.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.