Gleason v. Sanitary Milk-Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1900
• Citation: 45 A. 825,93 Me. 544
• Parties: GLEASON v. SANITARY MILK-SUPPLY CO. et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

45 A. 825

93 Me. 544

GLEASON

v. SANITARY MILK-SUPPLY CO. et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 12, 1900.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Kennebec county.

Action by William A. Gleason against the Sanitary Milk-Supply Company and Thomas A. Huston. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial and exceptions by defendants. Motion and exceptions sustained.

Exceptions by defendants. This was an action of assumpsit brought against the defendants jointly upon two counts; one count setting out that the said defendants, at Auburn, on the 19th day of September, 1898, by their promissory note of that date, by them signed, for value received, promised W. A. Gleason, the plaintiff, to pay him, or order, the sum of $90 and no cents, at First National Bank of Auburn, Me. The second count was the money count, with no specifications.

In the trial of the case in the superior court for Kennebec county, no claim was made to recover upon any contract other than that contained in the note described in the first count.

It was admitted that the Sanitary Milk-Supply Company was a corporation duly organized by law, and there was testimony Introduced tending to show that the defendant Thomas A. Huston was treasurer of the corporation at the time the note in question was given.

(1) Counsel for plaintiff offered in evidence the following note:

"$90.00. Auburn, Me., Sept 19th, 1898. Pour months after date, we promise to pay to the order of W. A. Gleason ninety dollars, at First National Bank of Auburn, Me. Value received. The Sanitary Milk-Supply Co., T. A. Huston, Treas."

Objection was taken by defendants on the ground that the note offered did not conform to the note declared upon. But the note was admitted, subject to exception.

(2) The plaintiff was called, and, having been shown the note, the following question was put: "State, as fully and accurately as you can recollect it, the conversation which you had with Huston."

Objection was thereupon made to any part of the testimony that would tend to contradict or vary the note. Subject to such objection, the plaintiff further testified, in answer to questions, as follows:

"Ques. Did he [Huston], or not, state anything about giving you a company note?

"Ans. I didn't hear him say anything about a company note; no, sir.

"Ques. And your understanding was that you were to receive whose note?

"Ans. Mr. Huston's. That is what I supposed."

(3) The defendants requested the following instructions:

First. The omission to write the word "by" before the name of T. A. Huston, making the signature read, "The Sanitary Milk-Supply Co., by T. A. Huston, Trs.," does not change the apparent character of the instrument.

Second. The whole instrument, construed together in all its parts, shows it to be the signature of the Sanitary Milk-Supply Company, and not T. A. Huston.

Third. A joint promise having been alleged, the action must fail if the evidence proves a promise by one only, and not by both.

In regard to the above-requested instructions the court said: "I think I have given sufficient instructions upon the point. The note itself, upon its face, would not hold Huston, if nothing more was shown. I think I will rule, for the purposes of this case, that the form of action is sufficient to sustain a judgment against the Milk-Supply Company."

The defendants also took exceptions to the charge to the jury as follows:

(1) The defendants claimed that the note in the case must speak for itself, and must be interpreted by the court, and that the jury would not be authorized to consider conversations tending to contradict or vary the note.

Upon this point the court instructed the Jury as follows:

"Ordinarily a promissory note put Into a case by the plaintiff is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the defendant, if the signature is not disputed, and the only question is what is called the 'general issue,' of never promised. It is not so in case there are any ambiguities,—any indications upon the note itself which show that the party attempted to be holden did not sign the note in the capacity of a maker. In this case the plaintiff was permitted to go further, and Introduce evidence having a tendency to show that T. A, Huston, who adds the letters Tr.' or 'Trs.' after his name, signed as maker, and with the intention of being held as maker.

"Now, there is no denial in this case, so far as the Sanitary Milk-Supply Company is concerned, that that company is holden. I do not understand that there is any pretense that that company is not a maker of the note. But it is claimed that the milk-supply company is the only maker of the note, and that the name of T. A. Huston, placed after it on this note, was the name of the agent who wrote the name of the corporation, the...