Blatchford v. Milliken
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 3071,35 Ill. 434 |
| Parties | ELIPHALET W. BLATCHFORDv.ISAAC L. MILLIKEN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
ERROR to Superior Court of Chicago.
Assumpsit by plaintiff in error against defendant in error, as guarantor of the payment of the following promissory note:
+--------------------------------+
¦“$200.¦CHICAGO, Nov. 26, 1859. ¦
+--------------------------------+
Sixty days after date, for value received, I promise to pay to myself or order the sum of two hundred dollars, with interest after due at 10 per cent.
GEORGE F. CROCKER.”
This note was indorsed as follows:
“GEORGE F. CROCKER.”
“ November 26, 1859.
For value received, I guaranty the payment of the within note at maturity.
CALVIN D'WOLF.
For value received, I guaranty the payment of the within note at maturity.
Nov. 26, 1859.
I. L. MILLIKEN.”
It appears that the above note, after being executed by Crocker, and before it was indorsed by him, was signed on its back in blank by D'Wolf and Milliken, over whose signatures the above guaranties were then written, and the note afterwards indorsed by Crocker and given by him to Blatchford to take up certain mortgages held by Blatchford against a person named Hughes, which Blatchford had agreed to surrender upon receiving Crocker's note guarantied by D'Wolf and Milliken.
The judgment in the court below was for the defendant; and the point to be determined upon error is whether Milliken's liability is that of an indorser or a guarantor.
H. T. Steele, for plaintiff in error.A. Garrison, for defendant in error.
It is the settled law of this state that a person who is not a party to a promissory note which is to become a valid obligation against the maker upon its delivery to the payee, by writing his name in blank upon the back of the note, is presumed to assent to the obligation of a guarantor. 3 Scam., 437; 3 Id., 497; 13 Ill., 628; 14 Id., 240; 17 Id., 465; 31 Id., 636; 25 Id., 91. But where the note creates no valid obligation against the maker, and can create none, until it is indorsed and transferred by the payee, the presumption is that a person writing his name in blank upon the back of the note assumes the obligation of an indorser. Inasmuch as the note can never have any validity until the name of the payee appears upon it as an indorser, the person writing his name in blank upon the note understands that, when the note takes effect, his name will appear upon it as a second indorser, and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quackenboss v. Harbaugh
... ... writing his name on it in blank undertook the obligation of a ... second indorser. [ Blatchford v. Milliken, 35 Ill ... 434.] The rule was otherwise as to a note payable to another ... party, and the Negotiable Instruments Act extended the ... ...
-
The First National Bank of St Charles v. Payne
...only, and not as maker. Clapp v. Rice, 13 Gray, 403; Stoddard v. Pennimann, 108 Mass. 366; Dubois v. Mason, 127 Mass. 37; Blatchford v. Milliken, 35 Ill. 434; Kayser Hall, 85 Ill. 511. (3) First. Where a promissory note, negotiable in form, is made by the maker payable to his own order, it ......
-
Salisbury v. First National Bank of Cambridge City
... ... Pittsburgh Opera House Co., 88 Pa ... 101.) The plaintiffs in error are not liable as makers ... (Webster v. Cobb, 17 Ill. 459; Blatchford v ... Milliken, 35 Ill. 434; Greenough v. Smead, 3 ... Ohio St. 415; Seymour v. Leyman, 10 Ohio St. 283; ... Sturtevant v. Randall, 53 Me. 154; ... ...
-
Brown v. Reasner
... ... 120; Webster v. Cobb, 17 Ill. 459; Carroll v. Weld, 13 Ill. 683; Kline v. Currier, 14 Ill. 237; Hance v. Miller, 21 Ill. 639; Blatchford v. Millikin 35 Ill. 434; White v. Weaver, 41 Ill. 409; Dietrich v. Mitchell, 43 Ill. 40; Glickauf v. Kauffman, 73 Ill. 378; Lincoln v. Hinzey, 51 ... ...