Goodnow v. Hill

• Decision Date: 13 November 1878
• Citation: 125 Mass. 587
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Nathan B. Goodnow v. Calvin A. Hill & wife

125 Mass. 587

Nathan B. Goodnow v. Calvin A. Hill & wife

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 13, 1878

Suffolk. Contract on the following promissory note signed by a husband and wife: "$ 600. Boston, March 28, 1876. One month after date we promise to pay to the order of N. B Goodnow six hundred dollars value received at any bank in Boston. Due May 1." Writ dated October 20, 1876.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., the defendants moved for a continuance to await the result of bankruptcy proceedings still pending in the United States District Court against the husband. The plaintiff thereupon discontinued the action as to him, and proceeded against the wife. It was admitted that the husband was, in December 1876, adjudicated a bankrupt on his petition filed in November, 1876; and that at the first meeting of his creditors the plaintiff duly proved against his estate the note in question. The wife asked the judge to rule, upon the above facts, that the plaintiff could not recover, because he had voluntarily discontinued as to one of the joint makers and because the plaintiff had proved the note in question in bankruptcy as above. The judge refused so to rule.

The wife also offered evidence tending to show that her husband had, on or about May 20, 1876, given to the plaintiff two notes signed by himself, one for $ 600, payable in four months, and one for $ 85, or $ 110 as bonus and interest, in payment and satisfaction of the note in suit. The plaintiff then offered evidence tending to show that the $ 600 note of May 20 was given as collateral security for the note in suit, and for his accommodation and not as payment; that he had the note of May 20 discounted, and received the proceeds, but had to take it up at maturity; but that there was no sale under the provisions of the statutes as to sale of pledges. The wife contended that the sale of the note of May 20 was prima facie evidence that it was received by the plaintiff in payment of the note in question; but the judge refused so to rule.

The husband was a witness for the wife; and the plaintiff, to affect his credit, offered to show that he had been convicted of committing an abortion, and for that purpose introduced evidence that an indictment had been found against him for such offence. It appeared from the record that the indictment was laid on file, and that the husband had never been found guilty nor pleaded guilty on such charge. This evidence was all excluded, and the jury were cautioned by the judge not to regard it.

The wife also asked the judge to rule that the giving of the notes of May 20, 1876, and their acceptance by the plaintiff were prima facie evidence that they were given in payment of the note in question. The judge ruled that it was prima facie evidence; but, as there was other evidence also bearing upon that point, that it would be for the jury to find whether or not they were received in payment on all the evidence; that there was no evidence in the case tending to show that the husband had ever been convicted of any criminal offence; that if the note in question was given for the husband's debt, the wife was not liable in this action, unless the plaintiff, with the burden of proof upon him, had satisfied the jury that she knew that the consideration of the note was borrowed money; and that if, on the day it was borrowed, the note was signed by the husband and wife, and the wife then directed the plaintiff to pay the...