Barnard v. Gaslin

• Decision Date: 25 October 1876
• Citation: 23 Minn. 192
• Parties: ELVIRA E. BARNARD <I>vs.</I> WILLIAM H. GASLIN, impleaded, etc.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

23 Minn. 192

ELVIRA E. BARNARDvs.

WILLIAM H. GASLIN, impleaded, etc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 25, 1876.

Action on a promissory note, made by the defendant W. A. Stanchfield to the order of defendant Gaslin, and by him endorsed. Answer, (by defendant Gaslin,) a general denial. At the trial in the court of common pleas of Hennepin county, before Young, J., (a jury being waived,) the following findings of fact were made by the court. Prior to June 8, 1873, the plaintiff lent to defendant Stanchfield $2,000, upon the agreement that Stanchfield should furnish the defendant Gaslin as security. Pursuant to this agreement Stanchfield made his note for $2,000, payable to the order of Gaslin, who wrote his name across the back of it, and it was delivered to plaintiff, who thereupon paid over the $2,000 to Stanchfield. The note not being paid at maturity, it was agreed between plaintiff and Stanchfield that a new note for the amount due, and interest, should be given, with Gaslin as security, and that the time for payment should be extended three months, and the old note given up. Pursuant to this agreement the defendant Stanchfield made the note in suit, for $2,266, bearing date June 9, 1873, and payable three months after date to the order of the defendant Gaslin, who wrote his name across the back of it, and it was delivered to plaintiff, and the old note taken up. This note has not been paid, and no steps have been taken to charge defendant Gaslin as endorser. No consideration ever moved from Gaslin to Stanchfield for the note, but Gaslin signed his name on the back of it before delivery, and for the sole purpose of securing the payment of the sum therein promised to be paid, and to induce plaintiff to surrender the first note above mentioned.

The conclusions of law found by the court were as follows:

1. That the defendant W. H. Gaslin being the payee of the promissory note upon which this action is brought, his relation is such that he cannot in law be held to be the maker of such note, even though his endorsement was for the purpose of giving credit to the note.

2. That the endorsement, by the payee, of a negotiable promissory note, amounts in law to a contract on the part of such endorser, in which he undertakes to pay the note in case the maker fails to pay at maturity, and of which failure he has due notice; and his liability in this regard cannot be varied or qualified by a parol agreement or understanding simultaneous with that of the...