Beattie v. Browne
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Citation | 1872 WL 8329,64 Ill. 360 |
| Parties | ROBERT BEATTIEv.JOSIAH M. BROWNE, Executor. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. GEORGE S. HOUSE, for the appellant.
This was a suit before a justice of the peace in Will county, and taken by appeal to the circuit court. The action was on a promissory note, as follows:
($100)
Six months after date, I promise to pay Mrs. Hofferman, or order, one hundred dollars, value received, with use at 10 per cent per annum.
A. HOUGHTELLING.
JOLIET, February 10, 1860.
After some credits noted on the back, there is this indorsement:
Pay to the order of C. W. Brandon; and for value received, I guarantee the payment of the same to Chas. W. Brandon.
May 29, 1861.
ROBERT BEATTIE.
Robert Beattie, the indorser, had married the payee, and the suit was brought by the executor of Brandon against Beattie, as indorser.
Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, to reverse which this appeal is taken by the defendant.
It was admitted on the trial that this writing on the note, over the name of Robert Beattie, was placed there by the plaintiff at the time of the trial before the justice of the peace.
Appellant raises this question: Is parol evidence admissible, as between the indorser and indorsee, to prove the contract which was in fact made at the time of the indorsement, and which such blank indorsement was intended to consummate?
In other words, is it permitted to explain or vary a written contract by parol?
The answer, on general principles, would be in the negative. It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that a written contract can not be changed or explained by parol. Some cases, to which reference has been made by appellant's counsel, are to the effect that a blank indorsement, as this is admitted to have been, is not really a written contract, but one resting in parol, and is open to explanation by parol.
We have examined all the cases cited, and can not think the views presented in them on this question are sound or safe. It can not be a parol contract where the payee indorses a note in blank, for there is, in legal contemplation, written over his name, the extent and character of his undertaking, which can not be varied by parol; but the question has been considered and decided several times by this court, the latest being that of Mason v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Windheim v. Ohlendorf
-
Hately v. Pike
...he has assumed the liability of an indorser, as fully as if the agreement were written out in words. Mason v. Burton, 54 Ill. 349;Beattie v. Browne, 64 Ill. 360;Courtney v. Hogan, 93 Ill. 101. Parol evidence is no more admissible to contradict or vary this contract than any other written co......
-
Gregg v. Groesbeck
...v. Robbins, 29 Ind. 271. See, also, Courtney v. Hogan, 93 Ill. 101; Skelton v. Dustin, 92 Ill. 49; Mason v. Burton, 54 Ill. 349; Beatty v. Brown, 64 Ill. 360; Johnson Glover, 121 Ill. 283; Eaton v. Mahone, 42 Wis. 484; Charles v. Dennis, 42 Wis. 56; American Co. v. Clark, 47 Io. 671; Kern v......
- Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman