Blakeslee v. Hewitt
| Decision Date | 18 March 1890 |
| Citation | 76 Wis. 341,44 N.W. 1105 |
| Parties | BLAKESLEE v. HEWITT ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; A. W. NEWMAN, Judge.
Action by Maria S. Blakeslee against James Hewitt and others, on a promissory note. From the judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.R. J. MacBride, for appellants.
Dickinson & Graham, for respondent.
The undisputed evidence in this case shows that all the indorsers signed the note upon which suit is brought before its delivery to the payee, to give credit to the maker, Colburn. This is the effect of the testimony of Ring and Youmans. The former says, in substance, that it was understood that the indorsers should indorse the note to give Colburn credit for the purchase of the mill property, and that he indorsed as he agreed to. Youmans says he knew Colburn's signature and the other signatures on the back of the note; that they were the signatures of the defendants Hewitt, Archer, Ring, and Youmans. The reason they signed as indorsers was as an accommodation to give credit to Colburn. Under these circumstances, they became liable to the payee as indorsers. That is the rule laid down by this court in Cady v. Shepard, 12 Wis. 639. It has been followed in other cases. Davis v. Barron, 13 Wis. 254; Snyder v. Wright, Id. 689; King v. Ritchie, 18 Wis. 555;Frederick v. Winans, 51 Wis. 472, 8 N. W. Rep. 301. It is idle to say, in the face of this testimony, which is undisputed, that there is no proof to show, when Hewitt and Archer indorsed the note, whether it was before or after delivery to the payee, or that they indorsed it to give credit to the maker. The testimony is clear and satisfactory that they and the other indorsers indorsed it before delivery for the very purpose of giving credit to the maker, and they should be held to their contract. The assumption that they might have signed as second indorsers, on the responsibility of the payee, is in conflict with all the facts proven.
Another objection taken is that there was no proof of a proper demand of payment and notice of dishonor given. The note was made payable at the Clark County Bank at Neillsville. The cashier of that bank, who was a notary public, duly demanded payment of the note at the bank, and protested the same for non-payment, and gave immediate notice to each of the indorsers. It appears that the note had been left with a bank at Sparta, doubtless for collection, and was sent by the latter bank to the Clark County Bank for the same purpose. It is said that it did not appear that the cashier of the Clark County Bank had any authority from the payee to present the note for payment. But the facts show that there was an implied authority for the Sparta bank to send the note to the Clark County Bank for collection, as was done. This authority is implied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minneapolis Sash & Door Company v. Metropolitan Bank
...plaintiff for purposes of presentment, notice of dishonor, etc. Simonds v. Black River Ins. Co., Fed Cas. No. 12,874. See also Blakeslee v. Hewett, 76 Wis. 341; Mt. v. McLeran, 26 Iowa 306. Defendant had a right, and it was its duty, to be guided by its own experience with the Mapleton Bank......
-
Phipps v. Harding
...parties standing in like relation to bills and notes with the plaintiffs in error here are to be treated as indorsers (Blakeslee v. Hewitt, 76 Wis. 341, 33 N.W. 1105), the supreme court of the United States, in Good Martin, 95 U.S. 90, and Bendey v. Townsend, 109 U.S. 665, 667, 3 Sup.Ct. 48......
-
Union Bank of Milwaukee v. Commercial Sec. Co.
...Barron et al., 13 Wis. 228;King et al. v. Ritchie et al., 18 Wis. 554;Frederick v. Winans, 51 Wis. 472, 8 N. W. 301;Blakeslee v. Hewett et al., 76 Wis. 341, 44 N. W. 1105. [3] The defense pleaded that the notes were delivered to appellants conditionally, and that the conditions were never f......
-
Taylor & Bournique Co. v. National Bank of Ashtabula
...invoked by plaintiff results from the decisions of its Supreme Court. See Stacy v. Dane County Bank, 12 Wis. 629; Blakeslee v. Hewett, 76 Wis. 341, 44 N.W. 1105. argument before me turns chiefly on whether or not there is any conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and o......