List Fin. Corp. v. Sherry

• Decision Date: 01 December 1937
• Citation: 298 Mass. 533,11 N.E.2d 442
• Parties: LIST FINANCE CORPORATION v. SHERRY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

298 Mass. 533

11 N.E.2d 442

LIST FINANCE CORPORATION

v.SHERRY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Dec. 1, 1937.

Action on contract by the List Finance Corporation against William H. Sherry. Decision for plaintiff for $393.75. A report to the appellate division was dismissed, and defendant appeals.

Order dismissing the report affirmed.Appeal from Appellate Division of District Court, Southern District; Torphy, Judge.

I. S. Levin, of Fall River, for plaintiff.

H. F. Clarkin and J. T. Farrell, both of Fall River, for defendant.

FIELD, Justice.

This action of contract was brought in a district court by a writ dated August 3, 1936. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note for $420 dated February 4, 1936, payable ‘on demand’ to its order, signed by the defendant and bearing the words ‘Due July 15th.’ The defendant answered general denial, payment, release, denial of the signature, and that if he ‘signed any note payable to the order of the plaintiff, it was a different note than the one set out in the declaration.’ The judge found for the plaintiff in the sum of $393.75 and interest, denied the defendant's motion that judgment be entered for him and denied seven requests for rulings made by the defendant. A report to the appellate division was dismissed and the defendant appealed.

There was no error in any matter of law which is before this court for review.

At the trial the plaintiff produced a note which was in accord with the note declared on, and introduced evidence that the signature thereon was the defendant's signature, and that the note, when it was signed, was identical with the note produced at the trial. The defendant admitted taht he signed the note, but testified that at the time he signed it no amount was written in. The plaintiff admitted ‘that the defendant actually received for the note only the sum of $350,’ but introduced evidence ‘that the defendant had agreed to pay the sum of $70 as interest, the said $70 being agreed upon by reason of the fact that in addition to the note in suit for which the defendant received $350, a friend of the defendant, on the same day and as part of the same transaction, received the sum of $301 from the plaintiff, and $35 of the $70 so agreed upon was interest on the said loan of $301, on which no interest was to be paid by the defendant's friend.’ The plaintiff, as the record states, admitted also ‘that the note in suit was a demand note but was not to become due and payable until July 15, 1936, and that the other note previously referred to was also a demand note, but was not to become due and payable until May 4, 1936.’ And the record states, ‘The plaintiff * * * demanded payment of the latter note within two weeks after it was given, and said note of $301 was paid in full on February 26, 1936 shortly after the demand was made. No interest was paid on it. No demand for the payment of the note in suit was made until after July 15, 1936.’ The defendant admitted ‘that a friend of his obtained a loan of $301 substantially as set out in the testimony for the plaintiff,’ but testified in substance that no amount was agreed upon as interest on either note.

1. The motion that judgment be entered for the defendant was denied rightly.

The denial of this motion was reviewed and sustained by the appellate division, and we review it on appeal without considering whether, since the grounds of the motion were not specified, the defendant was entitled as of right to a review thereof. The report of the ruling on this motion, however, brings before us no question of variance between allegations and proof. Pacheco v. Medeiros (Mass.) 198 N.E. 506.

Clearly it could have been found that the signature on the note was the defendant's signature. This fact was admitted by the defendant at the trial. And, on contradictory evidence, it could have been found that the note signed by the defendant was identical with the note produced at the trial-that is, that the note was not altered or changed in any respect. A finding for the plaintiff was warranted unless as matter of law such a finding was precluded by the...