Maynard Trust Co. v. Furbush

• Decision Date: 01 December 1922
• Parties: MAYNARD TRUST CO. v. FURBUSH et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

243 Mass. 190

137 N.E. 270

MAYNARD TRUST CO.

v.FURBUSH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Dec. 1, 1922.

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.

Action by the Maynard Trust Company against William H. Furbush and others on a promissory note indorsed by defendant. Finding for the defendant named and case reported at plaintiff's request for determination of the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment for defendant.

All of the defendants except Furbush were defaulted. The note was made by the Hellenic Tobacco Company, of which Furbush was treasurer, and was presented for payment at maturity, but notice of nonpayment was not sent to Furbush.

Howard A. Wilson, of Boston, for plaintiff.

E. H. Johnson and James R. Flanagan, both of Boston, for defendant Furbush.

PIERCE, J.

This is an action by the holder and payee of a promissory note dated November 7, 1915, payable two months after date to the order of the plaintiff, against the maker and three persons who had placed their signatures thereon in blank before delivery. St. 1898, c. 533, § 64, now G. L. c. 107, § 87. The maker and the indorsers other than the defendant were defaulted.

Although not active in its management, the defendant was the treasurer of the maker of the note, a Massachusetts corporation, at the time of the making of the note and for some time after its maturity. As such treasurer he signed the name of the corporation as the maker of the note. He was also at the time of the making of the note and until January, 1918, a director of the Maynard Trust Company, the plaintiff. The note in suit was the last of a chain of notes, of which the first is dated November 11, 1914, for two months for $1,000. This was renewed every two months, in some instances within a day or two before and in others after the date of maturity, until a note dated September 9, 1915, was given for $975 for two months, and when due was renewed by giving the note in suit which is dated November 7, 1915, and was discounted by the bank November 10, 1915.

The note in suit was payable ‘at any bank or trust company in Boston or Maynard.’ It was presented at maturity according to its terms, and was unpaid; but no notice of nonpayment was sent to the defendant Furbush. The defendant, on at least two occasions after the maturity and nonpayment of the note in suit, and at the request of the maker of the note, made and indorsed in like manner other notes with the note in suit and for the purpose of tendering the same to the plaintiff in renewal of the note in suit. ‘Whether or not said notes were so presented did not appear’ at...