Casco Nat. Bank v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 19 April 1887
• Parties: CASCO NAT. BANK v. SHAW and others.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

10 A. 67

79 Me. 376

CASCO NAT. BANK

v. SHAW and others.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 19, 1887.

On report from supreme judicial court, Cumberland county.

Assumpsit against the defendants, copartners, as indorsers of a promissory note. Before the maturity of the note the firm had become insolvent, and had made an assignment to a trustee for the benefit of their creditors, and subsequently insolvency proceedings were begun upon the petition of creditors.

Wm. L. Putnam, for plaintiff. George W. Morse and N. & H. B. Cleaves, for defendants.

WALTON, J. We think the defendants had due notice of the dishonor of the note declared on. Notices were addressed to them at their former place of business, where their affairs were being settled up by a trustee, to whom they had made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors, and we have no doubt that the notices were received by the trustee. Notices so sent and received are sufficient. Bank of America v. Shaw, 142 Mass. 290, 7 N. E. Rep. 779. In the case cited the notice was to the same firm and under substantially the same circumstances as in the cases now before us, and the notice was held good, "because it was sent to what had been the place of business of the firm where its affairs were actually in process of settlement under the trust."

It is objected that the notices were not properly mailed, because they were dropped into a street letter-box. We think this is not a valid objection. Street letter-boxes are authorized by an act of congress, (Rev. St. U. S. § 3868,) and are as completely and as exclusively under the care and control of the post-office department as boxes provided for the reception of letters within the post-office buildings themselves; and we think a letter deposited in a street letter-box, which has been put up by the post-office department, is as truly mailed, within the meaning of the law, as if it were deposited in a letter-box within the post-office building itself. It has been held that delivery to a letter carrier is sufficient. Pearce v. Langfit, 101 Pa. St. 507.

Payments are claimed. Since the commencement of this action the bank has received $44,398.17 from P. A. Wyman, which the defendants claim should be credited to them. The credit cannot be allowed. The money was not delivered or received as payments on the note in suit. It was received on a contract by which the bank agreed to assign to Wyman the notes in suit, and the actions thereon, "with all benefit of attachments, if any, made in said suits," and this contract has been assigned by Wyman to a third party. It is clear, therefore, that...