Beacon Trust Co. v. Barry

• Decision Date: 01 July 1927
• Parties: BEACON TRUST CO. v. BARRY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

260 Mass. 449

157 N.E. 530

BEACON TRUST CO.

v.BARRY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

July 1, 1927.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Stanley E. Qua, Judge.

Action of contract by the Beacon Trust Company against William J. Barry to recover on a promissory note. Verdict was ordered for plaintiff, and case reported. Judgment to be entered for plaintiff.D. Stoneman, of Boston, and R. Clayton, of Dorchester, for plaintiff.

J. E. McConnell and M. H. Sullivan, both of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

This is an action of contract on a promissory note signed by the defendant as maker, the tenor of which in so far as material is as follows:

‘$15,000.

Boston, May 23, 1924.

‘Six months after date I promise to pay to the order of Thomas F. Curley * * * fifteen thousand and 00/100 * * * dollars. At the Beacon Trust Company, Boston, Mass.

‘Value received

William J. Barry.

‘Address 431 Ashland street, Roslindale.’

It was indorsed on the back, ‘Thomas F. Curley, 40 Court street.’

The trial judge at the close of the evidence ordered a verdict for the plaintiff, and at the request of the defendant reported the case. If the ruling was right, judgment is to be entered for the amount of the note with interest from its date. If it was wrong, the case is to stand for trial.

[1] The burden of proof was on the plaintiff throughout the trial to show that it was a holder in due course. But the defendant not having denied his signature, the note was prima facie sufficient to support the action. G. L. c. 107, §§ 74, 82; Merchants' National Bank v. Marden, Orth & Co., 234 Mass. 161, 169, 125 N. E. 384. The answer, however, avers that the note was procured by the false and fraudulent representations of the payee from whom the defendant received no value, and that the plaintiff was not a holder for value and in good faith.

It could be found on the evidence introduced by the defendant that the defendant was induced to give the note on the promise and assurance of Curley that he would obtain from the plaintiff certain securities and deliver them to the defendant to secure its payment. These securities consisted of a lease and bill of sale of machinery held by the plaintiff as collateral security for money lent to the Murray Engineering Company of which Curley was treasurer. The evidence tended to show and the jury could find that the defendant was told by Curley that the plaintiff was pressing him for payment, although the collateral was more than sufficient to meet the indebtedness, and that the lease could be sold for $15,000 and the machinery for $2,800. The note, on the day of its date, was taken by Curley to the banking house of the plaintiff, and given to one Pierce, a vice president of the company. A few days later Curley telephoned the defendant from the plaintiff's bank that it would not release the securities for an unsecured note, nor would it take the note in suit unless the note was secured by real property, and requested the defendant to furnish such security. Pierce then talked with the defendant, and, after stating his official position, said that the bank would not release the securities for an unsecured note, and asked the defendant if he had any real estate. The defendant replied that he owned some real estate, but his credit would be affected if it were mortgaged. It was then suggested by Pierce that the defendant give the company a deed which should not be recorded. The defendant said it was a new proposition which he would consider. But a few days later fire destroyed the buildings on his property, which were uninsured. On June 6, Pierce again called the defendant by telephone and asked if he had come to any conclusion and inquired why he had not brought in a deed of his...