Broadway Bank & Trust Co. v. Longley
| Citation | 165 A. 800 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1933 |
| Parties | BROADWAY BANK & TRUST CO. v. LONGLEY et al. |
BROADWAY BANK & TRUST CO.
v.
LONGLEY et al.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
April 25, 1933.
On the back of the demand note appeared the following recital: "For value received the undersigned hereby jointly and severally guarantee payment of the within note, waiving demand of payment, notice of nonpayment and notice of protest thereon." If such writing should be regarded as a guaranty, cause of action accrued thereon as soon as note was executed and delivered, and, if writing should be regarded as indorsement, the signers, by waiving demand, notice of nonpayment, and protest, became immediately liable thereon, and an action could be brought against them at any time after execution and delivery of note.
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frederick M. Peasley, Judge.
Action by the Broadway Bank & Trust Company, as payee on a note, against Frank D. Longley and another, guarantors of such note. Judgment for plaintiff, and named defendant appeals.
Error, and judgment directed.
Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
Henry H. Hunt, of Hartford, for appellant.
Frank S. Bishop, of New Haven, for appellee.
MALTBIE, Chief Justice.
On December 3, 1923, C. S. Longley signed and delivered to the plaintiff a note for $1,900, payable on demand to himself at the plaintiff bank. On the back of the note appeared the following: "For value received the undersigned hereby jointly and severally guarantee payment of the within note, waiting demand of payment, notice of nonpayment and notice of protest thereon." This was signed by C. S. Longley, Josephine F. Longley, his wife, Frank D. Longley, and Charles D. Babb. C. S. Longley and Babb were discharged in bankruptcy before demand was made on the defendants for payment of the note. This action, brought against Josephine F. Longley and Frank D. Longley, sought a recovery based upon the writing on the back of the note. When it was given, it was understood that C. S. Longley would make payments on it from time to time and also that he was to pay interest. On March 10, 1924, Frank D. Longley Wrote the plaintiff asking the amount of the indebtedness on the note in question, "on which I am endorser," and the method of payment. The plaintiff in reply described the note, and stated that the interest had been paid to that time. From and after the date of this correspondence C. S. Longley from time to time paid the interest due on the note to January 1, 1930; the trial court has found that Frank D. Longley knew that interest was being charged and paid on it; and this finding is not
attacked. In 1927 C. S. Longley made a payment of $25 upon the principal. On April 24, 1930, the plaintiff made demand upon the defendant for payment, and the trial court has found that, in view of all the circumstances, this demand was made within a reasonable time. It was stipulated between the plaintiff and the defendant Josephine F. Dongley that judgment should be entered against the latter, and the court after hearing gave judgment against both the defendants for the balance due upon the note with interest and costs. Frank D. Longley has appealed, and we shall hereafter speak of him as the defendant.
The defendant claims that any liability on his part is barred by the statute of limitations. The statute provides that an action upon such an obligation as that embodied in this note and in the writing upon the back of it must be brought within six years after the right of action accrued. General Statutes, § 6005. The right of action upon the note accrued at once upon its execution and delivery. House v. Peacock, 84 Conn. 54, 55, 78 A. 723; Higinbotham v. Manchester, 113 Conn. 62, 72, 154 A....
To continue reading
Request your trial