Costello Bros., Inc. v. Buckley, 6574.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1930
• Docket Number: No. 6574.,6574.
• Citation: 148 A. 414
• Parties: COSTELLO BROS., Inc. v. BUCKLEY.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

148 A. 414

COSTELLO BROS., Inc.

v. BUCKLEY.

No. 6574.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 13, 1930.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Herbert L, Carpenter, Judge.

Assumpsit by Costello Bros., Inc., against John Buckley. A verdict was directed for plaintiff, and defendant's motion for direction of a verdict in his favor was denied, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted, with directions.

Michael F. Costello, of Pawtucket, and Francis J. O'Brien, of Providence, for plaintiff.

Woolley & Blais and John F. Quinn, all of Pawtucket, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. This is an action in assumpsit to recover on a series of six promissory notes, all dated January 4, 1927, and payable in one to six months from their date. The notes were payable to the order of the plaintiff, and signed by James H. Martin. Across the back of each note at the top is printed the following: "Waiving demand and notice ——hereby indorse and guarantee the full payment of the within note and interest; future payments of interest in renewal or extension thereof, and indulgence to the maker not releasing——." Directly underneath is defendant's signature, but lengthwise of the note, and so at a right angle with the printed form. The signature of the defendant was placed on the notes before delivery to the plaintiff. At the trial in the superior Court the plaintiff introduced the notes and rested; the defendant offered no testimony, but moved for direction of a verdict, on the ground that the defendant was an indorser, not a guarantor, and, as he had not received notice of dishonor, was not liable as an indorser. The trial justice denied this motion, and granted the motion of the plaintiff that a verdict in its favor be directed. The case is before us on defendant's exceptions to the above rulings of the court below.

It is contended in behalf of the defendant that, inasmuch as the blank spaces in the printed form were not filled in, and as he did not sign his name in the usual manner, section 23 of chapter 227, General Laws, applies. So much of said section as is pertinent is as follows: "Sec. 23. Where the language of the instrument is ambiguous, or there are omissions therein, the following rules of construction apply: * *,* 6. Where a signature is so placed upon the instrument that it is not clear in what capacity the person making the same intended to sign, he is to be deemed an indorser."

We find no ambiguity in the instruments...