Moynahan v. Hannaford

• Decision Date: 29 November 1879
• Citation: 42 Mich. 329,3 N.W. 944
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MATHIAS J. MOYNAHAN v. JOHN M. HANNAFORD.

3 N.W. 944

42 Mich. 329

MATHIAS J. MOYNAHAN v. JOHN M. HANNAFORD.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 29, 1879

It appearing that the firm of which defendant H. herein was a member signed the notes in question for the accomodation of and as surety for the principal maker, and that the signing was without the knowledge or consent of defendant in error he is held not liable thereon.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Brennen & Donnelly, for plaintiff in error.

Griffin & Dickinson, for defendant in error.

COOLEY J.

Moynahan brought suit in the superior court of Detroit to recover the amount of four promissory notes, all in the same form. The following is a copy of one:

"$100. DETROIT, May 1, 1877.

"Three months after date I promise to pay to the order of M.J Moynahan $100, at People's Saving Bank, with 10 per cent. interest.

"[Signed] CHARLES LOCKE.

"[Across the back] TRISTRAM & WEBBER."

According to the settled doctrine of this court, the note being made payable to the order of another than those writing their names upon the back, the latter must be regarded as joint makers with Locke. Weatherwax v. Paine, 2 Mich. 555; Rothschild v. Grix, 31 Mich. 150.

Hannaford, who was one of the firm of Tristram & Webber, put in the defence that the firm were parties to the notes only as they lent their names to Locke for his accommodation, and that Moynahan had notice of this when he took the notes. The facts relied upon to show notice were these: The firm of Griffin & Co. had previously been indebted to Moynahan, and had given to him for their debt the notes of Locke, which Moynahan had procured to be discounted on his own indorsement, but had been obliged to take up on Locke failing to meet them. The notes now in suit were then obtained by Griffin & Co. and delivered to Moynahan in the place of the others. There was no evidence that Moynahan knew anything further about the facts than is above stated.

It seems to us, however, that on the foregoing statement the presumption must be that Locke alone was primarily indebted on these notes. They were given and received in the place of his pre-existing indebtedness to which the firm of Tristram &amp Webber was in no manner a party. They were made payable to Moynahan himself, and therefore in their inception must be presumed to have had in view Moynahan's debt. We cannot infer that they were given on new dealings between plaintiff and Tristram & Webber,...