Forsythe v. Kimball

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSWAYNE
Citation91 U.S. 291,23 L.Ed. 352
Decision Date01 October 1875
PartiesFORSYTHE v. KIMBALL

91 U.S. 291
23 L.Ed. 352
FORSYTHE
v.
KIMBALL.
October Term, 1875

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. W. C. Goudy for the appellant, and by Mr. John L. Thompson for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

The case made by the bill is as follows:——

Page 292

The appellant, John Forsythe, negotiated a loan of $5,000 from the insurance company. He had four brothers. For $4,000 of the amount loaned, he and each of his brothers gave a separate note of $800. Ten notes of $200 each, signed by all the parties, were given for the interest, which was to be paid semi-annually, at the rate of ten per cent per annum. The notes all bore date on the 5th of January, 1869. Those for the principal were to be paid at the end of five years. At the same time, Robert H. Forsythe, one of the brothers, gave for the residue of the loan his note for $1,000, of the same date with the five notes of $800 each. He also then gave his ten notes of $50 each for the interest, which was at the same rate as that upon the notes of $800, and payable at the same times. The notes were all made payable to J. Y. Scammon, or order.

Four thousand dollars of the money loaned was invested in real estate, and the title taken to the five brothers who had executed the five notes of $800. They secured those notes and the ten interest notes by a mortgage on the premises. The $1,000 for which Robert H. Forsythe gave his notes was invested in land which was conveyed to him, and he secured his notes by a mortgage upon it. Scammon was an active officer of the insurance company. When the loan was negotiated and consummated, the appellant, as an inducement to the company to make it, assumed and promised by parol to pay all the notes above mentioned, both for principal and interest. Upon receiving the securities, Scammon indorsed and transferred them to the insurance company. The appellant insists that the $5,000 was lent by the company, and not by Scammon, and that the loan was to him, and in no part to the other parties who executed the notes. The appellant paid all the interest notes, amounting to $1,250, which fell due prior to the 9th of October, 1871. His brothers are irresponsible, and paid nothing. On the day last named the great Chicago fire occurred. He held fire-policies issued by the company upon buildings which were consumed. The company thus became indebted to him to the amount of $11,000. His losses were settled and adjusted at that sum. No part of it has been paid. On the 28th of April, 1873, his four brothers conveyed to him their rights and titles to the several mortgaged premises.

Page 293

He seeks to have the amount due to him from the insurance company set off against all the notes, so far as shall be necessary to satisfy and extinguish the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 practice notes
  • In re Rothenberg, Bankruptcy No. 88-00754
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 3, 1996
    ...U.S. (5 Otto) 474, 481, 24 L.Ed. 508 (1877) (case arising under District of Columbia law); Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U.S. (1 Otto) 291, 294, 23 L.Ed. 352 (1875); Specht v. Howard, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 564, 566, 21 L.Ed. 348 (1872). D. Patent Versus Latent The plaintiff also urges that the rule ......
  • Greenwich Insurance Company v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 28, 1905
    ...Ark. 406; 58 Ark. 277; 71 F. 476. Parol negotiations leading up to a written contract are merged into the written contract. 16 Wall. 564; 91 U.S. 291; 95 U.S. 474; 96 U.S. 544; 101 U.S. 93; 104 U.S. 30, 252; 106 U.S. 252; 1 S.Ct. 313; 127 U.S. 607; 134 U.S. 306; 141 U.S. 518; 6 Allen, 552; ......
  • New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. US SHIPPING BOARD, ETC., No. 2519.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 11, 1927
    ...Ct. 213, 27 L. Ed. 145; Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30. 26 L. Ed. 647; Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474, 24 L. Ed. 508; Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U. S. 291, 23 L. Ed. 352; Parish v. U. S., 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 489, 19 L. Ed. 472; Bank v. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51, 8 L. Ed. 316. See, also, Ryan v. Security S......
  • Andrus v. Blazzard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • February 4, 1901
    ...71 (Ill.); Randell v. Huntington, 46 Am. 421 (Me.); Haskins v. Durn, 56 P. 953, 954 (Utah); Edgar v. Golden, 60 P. 2; Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U.S. 291; Brown v. Spofford, 95 U.S. 508. This rule applies in favor of parties, their privies, representatives, and all claiming under them. Moyle v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
56 cases
  • In re Rothenberg, Bankruptcy No. 88-00754
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 3, 1996
    ...U.S. (5 Otto) 474, 481, 24 L.Ed. 508 (1877) (case arising under District of Columbia law); Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U.S. (1 Otto) 291, 294, 23 L.Ed. 352 (1875); Specht v. Howard, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 564, 566, 21 L.Ed. 348 (1872). D. Patent Versus Latent The plaintiff also urges that the rule ......
  • Greenwich Insurance Company v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 28, 1905
    ...Ark. 406; 58 Ark. 277; 71 F. 476. Parol negotiations leading up to a written contract are merged into the written contract. 16 Wall. 564; 91 U.S. 291; 95 U.S. 474; 96 U.S. 544; 101 U.S. 93; 104 U.S. 30, 252; 106 U.S. 252; 1 S.Ct. 313; 127 U.S. 607; 134 U.S. 306; 141 U.S. 518; 6 Allen, 552; ......
  • New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. US SHIPPING BOARD, ETC., No. 2519.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 11, 1927
    ...Ct. 213, 27 L. Ed. 145; Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30. 26 L. Ed. 647; Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474, 24 L. Ed. 508; Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U. S. 291, 23 L. Ed. 352; Parish v. U. S., 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 489, 19 L. Ed. 472; Bank v. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51, 8 L. Ed. 316. See, also, Ryan v. Security S......
  • Andrus v. Blazzard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • February 4, 1901
    ...71 (Ill.); Randell v. Huntington, 46 Am. 421 (Me.); Haskins v. Durn, 56 P. 953, 954 (Utah); Edgar v. Golden, 60 P. 2; Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U.S. 291; Brown v. Spofford, 95 U.S. 508. This rule applies in favor of parties, their privies, representatives, and all claiming under them. Moyle v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT