Franklin Commercial Discount Co. v. Goodman

• Decision Date: 19 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 5.,5.
• Citation: 169 A. 534
• Parties: FRANKLIN COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CO. v. GOODMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

169 A. 534

FRANKLIN COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CO.

v. GOODMAN.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 19, 1933.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County.

Action by the Franklin Commercial Discount Company, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, against Henry J. Goodman. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued May term, 1933, before BROGAN, C. J., and TRENOHARD and IIEHER, JJ.

Platoff, Saperstein & Platoff, of Union City (David Saperstein, of Union City, of counsel), for appellant.

Aaron A. Melniker, of Jersey City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

A judgment was recovered by the plaintiff below (a corporation engaged in the business of discounting commercial paper) against the defendant in the Hudson county court of common pleas.

One Moses Redler offered to the plaintiff an option to purchase certain negotiable paper in the amount of $1,000. This application or offer, dated April 27, 1928, was submitted to the plaintiff and contained the information that the commercial paper was to be signed by Redler Realty Associates, Inc., as maker, with Moses Redler as payee and consisted of two notes, each in the sum of $500, dated April 28, 1928.

This formal application for credit or option to purchase, as it is called, was received in evidence, on the back of which appear the following typewritten words:

"I hereby guarantee this account.

"H. J. Goodman."

Mr. Goodman was the defendant in the cause and admitted that he signed this guaranty agreement. No objection was made to the reception as evidence of this application for credit or option to purchase. The two $500 notes were also received in evidence to which strenuous objection was made by the defendant upon the ground that there was a variance between these notes which the plaintiff discounted and the application for credit or option to purchase, which contained the defendant's guaranty agreement.

Roth plaintiff and defendant produced additional proofs and the court submitted the case to the jury which returned a verdict for the full amount, and interest, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

The defendant-appellant has filed six grounds of appeal, seeking a reversal of this judgment, which are argued under three headings. (1) That the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence the promissory notes in question.

The substance of this point is briefly this: That the option to purchase the negotiable paper in question recited that the maker of the note was to be the Redler Realty Associates, Inc., and the payee of the note was to be Moses Redler, while in the notes which were discounted by the plaintiff, it appears that although the maker was the Redler Realty Associates, Inc., the payee was "ourselves." The notes were each indorsed by the maker in blank so that there is some variance in the form of the commercial paper, as discounted, as against the form described in the printed option to purchase such commercial paper. This was the basis of the defendant's objection, or to use his own language, that the notes "as executed do not conform to the description contained in the offer." The court, however, in our judgment, properly admitted these notes for the reason that there was testimony, at that posture of the case, that the notes were attached to the printed option when defendant signed the guaranty and were comprehended by the language of the guaranty, namely. "I hereby guarantee this account." While it is true that contracts of guaranty...