Dubois v. Mason

• Decision Date: 26 June 1879
• Citation: 127 Mass. 37
• Parties: Henry J. Dubois v. James B. Mason
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

127 Mass. 37

Henry J. Dubois v. James B. Mason

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 26, 1879

Argued October 25, 1878

Bristol. Contract against the defendant, as a joint and several promisor, upon the following promissory note, signed by William H. Shurtleff: "$ 500. Providence, R. I September 27, 1875. One month after date I promise to pay to the order of myself five hundred dollars." On the back of the note was the name of Shurtleff, followed by tat of the defendant.

Trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court in substance as follows:

The defendant signed his name upon the back of the note, after it was signed upon the face, but before it was negotiated, and before Shurtleff signed his name upon the back. The note was made in Rhode Island, and was payable there; and the plaintiff contended that, by the law of that State, the defendant, on the above facts, was a joint and several promisor with Shurtleff, and put in evidence of such law the cases of Matthewson v. Sprague, 1 R. I. 8, and Perkins v. Barstow, 6 R. I. 505. The judge ruled that on this evidence, the defendant was not liable; and directed a verdict for the defendant. If the ruling was correct judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise, a new trial to be ordered.

Judgment on the verdict.

H. J. Dubois, for the plaintiff.

C. A. Reed, for the defendant.

Colt J. Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The note in suit was made in Rhode Island, and it is contended that by the law of that state the defendant is liable as a joint promisor with Shurtleff. Two decisions only of the Supreme Court of that State, Mathewson v Sprague, 1 R.I. 8, and Perkins v. Barstow, 6 R.I. 505, were produced as evidence of the law there. Neither of these cases supports the plaintiff's claim; on the contrary, they state the law, so far as they go, in entire conformity with the law of this Commonwealth in like cases. It is well settled by the decisions of this court, that the defendant was not a joint promisor or maker. A promissory note payable to the order of the maker, and by him indorsed, is in legal effect a note payable to bearer. It may be transferred by indorsement, as well as by delivery. An indorser of such a note is entitled to demand and notice, and does not come within that limited class of cases where one who is neither maker nor payee, and who puts his name on the back of a note before it is negotiated, has been held as joint...