Lewis v. Monahan
| Decision Date | 09 March 1899 |
| Citation | 53 N.E. 150,173 Mass. 122 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. MONAHAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E.B. Goodsell, for plaintiff.
John F Cronan, for defendant.
One Naiherseg, having made the note in suit payable to his own order, took it to the defendant, with a request that he indorse it, so that Naiherseg could get it discounted, and stating that it would be necessary to have two indorsers, and that he would get the plaintiff to indorse it. The defendant replied that he would indorse the note if Naiherseg would get the plaintiff's signature, but the note must be shown to him indorsed by the plaintiff before being discounted. Upon making this statement, the defendant indorsed the note, and Naiherseg took it so indorsed to the plaintiff, who indorsed his signature upon the note under that of the defendant, and the note was then again shown to the defendant, and was afterwards taken to a bank by Naiherseg, and discounted for his own benefit. It was in dispute whether Naiherseg's own indorsement, which was upon the note when it was presented for discount, was upon the note when it was indorsed by the defendant and the plaintiff. There was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the conversation between Naiherseg and the defendant on the occasion when the defendant indorsed the note. Naiherseg failed to pay the note at maturity, and notice of nonpayment and protest was given to the defendant and to the plaintiff. After this notice was received, the plaintiff called upon the defendant, and asked him what was to be done in regard to the note. The defendant replied that the only thing to do was to go to the bank, and each pay one-half of the amount of the note and the notarial fees, and the evidence was conflicting as to whether the plaintiff agreed to this proposition; but on the following day the plaintiff paid to the bank the amount due on the note and the notarial fees, and erased his own indorsement from the note, and thereafter brought this suit upon the note against the defendant. At the trial the court ruled that there was no question for the jury, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff.
It is not contended that the evidence that the plaintiff, after the parties to the action had received notice of the dishonor of the note, assented to the defendant's proposition that each of them should pay to the holder of the note one-half of the amount due upon it and the notarial fees, would justify a finding that, when the defendant and the plaintiff made their indorsements, there was an understanding or agreement between them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Granite Bank v. Tyndale
... ... which she was the maker, and the other parties were, as ... between them and the bank, the indorsers. Lewis v ... Monahan, 173 Mass. 122, 53 N.E. 150. The fact that the ... note was declared void as to her did not destroy the original ... transaction, ... ...
-
Aronson v. Nurenburg
... ... Dec ... 291; Prescott Bank v. Caverly, 7 Gray, 217, 66 Am ... Dec. 473. This conclusion is not at variance with Lewis ... v. Monahan, ... [218 Mass. 378] ... 173 Mass. 122, 53 N.E. 150, and Shea v. Vahey, 215 ... Mass. 80, 102 N.E. 119, relied on by the ... ...
-
Bamford v. Boynton
...and defendant are not those of joint makers, or of cosureties or guarantors, but are those of successive indorsers. Lewis v. Monahan, 173 Mass. 122, 53 N. E. 150, and cases cited. The declaration therefore was sufficient. It follows that, even if the question involved in the ruling requeste......