Coon v. Pruden
| Decision Date | 24 June 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 105 |
| Parties | C. R. COON <I>vs.</I> A. K. PRUDEN and another. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county against the defendants A. K. Pruden and Annette L. Hare, formerly copartners as A. K. Pruden & Co., on a promissory note signed A. K. Pruden, payable to the order of A. K. Pruden & Co., and endorsed in the same partnership name. Pruden having been adjudged a bankrupt, proceedings were stayed as to him individually, and the only question litigated at the trial before Brill, J., was upon the liability of the copartnership upon the note. At the close of plaintiff's case the court ordered a dismissal of the action; a new trial was refused, and plaintiff appealed.
Davis, O'Brien & Wilson, for appellant.
H. J. Horn, and Simonton & Reid, for respondents.
Action upon a promissory note, made by A. K. Pruden, payable to the order of A. K. Pruden & Co., a firm of which the maker was a member, endorsed by the firm, and coming into the hands of plaintiff. No demand for payment, or notice of non-payment to the endorsers, was proved. The plaintiff claimed to prove, by parol, that at the making of the note, it was intended that the firm should be the makers, and that they endorsed it for that purpose, and not for the purpose of assuming merely the liability of endorsers. The action was dismissed.
The case is not analogous to those in which parol evidence has been admitted to show the character which a party, writing his name on the back of a note, intended to assume. That can be done only where such character is not shown by the writing itself, as where, at the time of making a note, a party other than the payee endorses it. McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 114 (139.) Where the payee endorses it, the liability intended to be assumed appears from the writing itself, and such intention, as shown by the writing, cannot generally be varied by parol. Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 227 (323;) First National Bank v. National Marine Bank, 20 Minn. 63; Barnard v. Gaslin, 23 Minn. 192.
The defendants must be held as endorsers, or not at all. Their liability as endorsers never matured, for there was no demand of payment from the maker. It may be true, as indicated in some decisions, that the maker being a member of the firm which endorsed the note, his knowledge that it was not paid served as notice to the firm of its non-payment. But his liability and promise as maker being several and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Sehon
... ... indorser, when there are several." Pierse v ... Irvine, 1 Minn. 369 (Gil. 272). But in Coon v ... Pruden, 25 Minn. 105, the court held that: "A ... member of a firm made a promissory note payable to the order ... of the firm. Held, that ... ...
-
People's Bank of Minneapolis v. Rockwood
...not anomalous indorsers or joint makers. To hold them it is necessary to show demand of payment and notice to them of nonpayment. Coon v. Pruden, 25 Minn. 105. is no inconsistency in defendants' positions at the trial and on the motion for a new trial. They contended that the certificate wa......
-
Burwell v. Gaylord
...of decisions in this state, this may not be done. Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 323 (Gil. 227); Barnard v. Gaslin, 23 Minn. 192;Coon v. Pruden, 25 Minn. 105;People's Bank v. Rockwood, 59 Minn. 420, 61 N. W. 457;Bowler v. Braun, 63 Minn. 32, 65 N. W. 124,56 Am. St. Rep. 449; and Porter v. ......
-
Porter v. Winona & Dakota Grain Co.
...and certain liability, and it cannot be shown by parol that his agreement was that of a maker instead of that of an indorser. Coon v. Pruden, 25 Minn. 105;Bank v. Rockwood, 59 Minn. 423,61 N. W. 457;Bowler v. Braun, 63 Minn. 32, 65 N. W. 124. It follows that the case was properly dismissed ......