Guild v. Butler
Decision Date | 05 September 1879 |
Citation | 127 Mass. 386 |
Parties | William H. Guild v. Alford Butler |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued March 29, 1878 [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Contract on a promissory note for $ 975.24, dated August 10, 1875, signed by the defendant, payable to the order of Robert W. Dresser & Co., and by them indorsed.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., it appeared that, on September 18, 1875. Robert W. Dresser & Co. borrowed of the plaintiff the sum of $ 3000 and gave him their promissory note therefor; that, at the same time, they delivered to him, as collateral security for the loan, three other promissory notes, one of which was the note of Hamlin & Co. for $ 1826.17, and the other two the notes of the defendant, one of which is the note in suit; that the last two notes were accommodation notes, but the plaintiff did not know this when he took them, and only became aware of it after the first one, not the one in suit, matured; that, on November 29, 1875, the plaintiff received from Dresser & Co. the sum of $ 500, for which he gave a receipt, promising therein to pay the sum received on demand; and that Dresser died on December 1, 1875.
The plaintiff, being called by the defendant, testified that, on February 2, 1876, he received from George P. Baldwin a check for $ 913, which was subsequently paid, and in consideration thereof made and delivered to Baldwin the following instrument: The plaintiff objected to the admission of this paper as a release, on the ground that it was not under seal, and that it was immaterial for any other purpose. But the judge admitted it. The plaintiff testified, on cross-examination, that he placed the note of Hamlin & Co. in the hands of his attorney, for collection; and that he received nothing upon said note beyond the above $ 913.
The plaintiff further testified that, a short time before the defendant's notes matured, he put them in a bank, for collection; and, upon notice from the defendant, he produced the following letter to the president of that bank:
There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff received this letter before February 2, 1876, the date of his transactions with Baldwin in regard to the note of Hamlin & Co. The plaintiff objected to the admission of this letter. The judge admitted it in evidence for the purpose of showing the plaintiff's knowledge that the above notes were accommodation notes.
The plaintiff asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows:
The judge declined so to rule; and, with other instructions not objected to, instructed the jury as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bank of Conway v. Stary
...the person ultimately liable, without the consent of the surety, that is the accommodation maker, released the latter. Guild v. Butler, 127 Mass. 386, and cases cited at 389; Jennings v. Moore, 189 Mass. 197. The precise point is whether this rule of law has been changed by the negotiable i......
-
The Bank of Conway, a Corp. v. Stary
...without the consent of the surety, that is the accommodation maker, released the latter. Guild v. Butler, 127 Mass. 386, and cases cited at 389; Jennings v. Moore, 189 Mass. 197, 75 N.E. 214. precise point is whether this rule of law has been changed by the negotiable instruments act. "It i......
-
Frank v. Snow
...surety to any of its benefits. (Orvis v. Newell, 17 Conn. 102; Gahn v. Niemcewicz, 11 Wend. 312; Lauman v. Nichols, 15 Iowa 161; Guild v. Butler, 127 Mass. 386; v. Brooks, 21 Pick. 195; Sprigg v. Bank, etc., 10 id., 257; Edwards on Bills and N., 573.) At common law, a promissory note was ne......
-
Silverstein v. Saster
...v. Dorr, 60 Minn. 173, 62 N. W. 269, this principle was apparently applied to a conveyance subject to the mortgage. See, also, Guild v. Butler, 127 Mass. 386; Williston, Contracts, § 386. Even when consent of the mortgagee to the new relationship has been treated as necessary to bind him to......