Carter v. Goff

• Decision Date: 24 February 1886
• Citation: 5 N.E. 471,141 Mass. 123
• Parties: CARTER and another v. GOFF.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

141 Mass. 123

5 N.E. 471

CARTER and another v. GOFF.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

February 24, 1886

Contract upon a promissory note. At the trial before KNOWLTON, J., it appeared that one Haldeman made a promissory note payable to the order of the plaintiff. The defendant put his name upon the back of the note before the plaintiff indorsed it, and before it was delivered to the plaintiff. The evidence tended to show that the defendant received no consideration or advantage for his indorsement, and it was not disputed that it was an accommodation indorsement so far as Haldeman was concerned. The only question at the trial was whether the defendant's indorsement was for the accommodation of Haldeman alone, or for the accommodation of both Haldeman and the plaintiff. Upon this question the defendant desired to go to the jury, claiming that Haldeman was the agent of the plaintiff to procure the defendant's indorsement. The plaintiff testified that, at the time the note was given by Haldeman and indorsed by defendant, he, the plaintiff, was financially embarassed and in a failing condition, and that shortly afterwards he did fail, and was at the time of the trial, effecting a compromise with his creditors. He also testified that, at the time the note was given and indorsed as aforesaid, he was exceedingly anxious to obtain money or negotiable paper, which he could use by way of discount, and with his creditors, in order to "tide over" his embarrassment and to save his business from failure. It appeared that Haldeman was at the time indebted to the plaintiff for board in a sum equal to or greater than the amount of the note in question, and that the plaintiff was endeavoring to collect the debt which Haldeman said he had not the money to pay. The plaintiff further testified:

"Haldeman wanted me to take his note for the payment of his bill. I said I could not use it; but if he could get a good indorser I could use it as money to pay my bills with. I said to him I could use Mr. Goff's note, knowing that he had had some business transactions with Mr. Goff. I had had one of his notes, and knew that Haldeman was in some way connected with him. So he got Mr. Goff's indorsement, and I used the note, or he came back with the note indorsed by Mr. Goff. I think he suggested at first that he could get Wilson's indorsement. I suggested Mr. Goff. I said I knew I could use Mr. Goff's note."

Haldeman testified to his conversation with the plaintiff substantially to the effect that the plaintiff pressed him for payment of his bill, and that Haldeman's note with the defendant's indorsement was suggested; that plaintiff told him that he (the plaintiff) could not use his (Haldeman's) note, but could use it if a good indorsement was procured. Haldeman further testified that he saw the defendant in reference to his indorsement, and procured it for his (Haldeman's) accommodation, and not for the plaintiff's accommodation. The plaintiff gave Haldeman credit for the amount of the note in suit. It also appeared that Haldeman was, at the time of the trial, still boarding at the plaintiff's hotel, and was still...