Aronson v. Nurenburg
| Decision Date | 17 June 1914 |
| Citation | 105 N.E. 1056,218 Mass. 376 |
| Parties | ARONSON v. NURENBURG et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Lourie & Lourie and Blanchard & Blanchard, all of Boston, for plaintiff.
Henry I. Morrison, of Boston, for defendant Max Sokolowitz.
1. The denial of the motion to amend the defendant's answer was wholly within the discretion of the presiding judge, and is not open to exception. Lang v. Bunker, 6 Allen, 61; Smith v. Whiting, 100 Mass. 122.
2. If the amendment had been allowed the evidence offered did not set up a legal defense to the note. When the defendant Sokolowitz, who will hereinafter be called the defendant, placed his signature upon the back of the note without qualification he became an indorser. R. L. c. 73, § 80. If the defendant's only intention was to indorse the note for the purpose of transferring title to the plaintiff, without incurring any personal liability, he could have accomplished that purpose by adding to his signature the words 'without recourse,' or any words of similar import. R. L. c. 73, § 55. Having indorsed the note without qualification he became liable to the plaintiff for the amount due thereon. Evidence of an oral agreement that at the time the defendant indorsed the note such indorsement was to be without recourse as to him was rightly excluded. Such evidence would tend to vary and control a written instrument absolute in its terms by parol, and was clearly incompetent. Wooley v. Cobb, 165 Mass. 503, 43 N.E. 497; Essex Co. v. Edmands, 12 Gray, 273, 279, 71 Am. Dec. 758; Wright v. Morse, 9 Gray, 337, 339, 69 Am. Dec. 291; Prescott Bank v. Caverly, 7 Gray, 217, 66 Am. Dec. 473. This conclusion is not at variance with Lewis v. Monahan, 173 Mass. 122, 53 N.E. 150, and Shea v. Vahey, 215 Mass. 80, 102 N.E. 119, relied on by the defendant. There is no question that indorsers upon a note may make among themselves a valid agreement that the liability of either shall be different from that which the law otherwise would impose, but that principle has no application to this case.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cont'l Corp. v. Gowdy
...have been imposed on him as a result of his transfer of the instrument by indorsement. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 107, § 61. Aronson v. Nurenberg, 218 Mass. 376, 105 N. E. 1056. Here the words are a part of the contract of the obligor of the bond and there is an express agreement that the bonds ar......
-
Continental Corp. v. Gowdy
...have been imposed on him as a result of his transfer of the instrument by indorsement. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 107, Section 61. Aronson v. Nurenberg, 218 Mass. 376 . Here the are a part of the contract of the obligor of the bond and there is an express agreement that the bonds are "issued" with......
-
Leckie v. Bray
... ... inadmissible parol evidence was rejected by the trial court ... and the ruling sustained by this court. In Aronson v ... Nurenberg, 218 Mass. 376, 105 N.E. 1056, it was held ... that the trial court had properly refused leave to amend an ... answer so as to ... ...
-
Leckie v. Bray
...a defense upon inadmissible parol evidence was rejected by the trial court and the ruling sustained by this court. In Aronson v. Nurenberg, 21S Mass. 376, 105 N. E. 1056, it was held that the trial court had properly refused leave to amend an answer so as to state a defense founded upon ina......