National Bank of the Commonwealth v. Alexander Law
| Decision Date | 25 June 1879 |
| Citation | 127 Mass. 72 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | National Bank of the Commonwealth v. Alexander Law & others |
Suffolk. Contract against the first-named defendant as maker, and the other defendants as indorsers, on the following promissory note: On the back of the note was the name "John Savery's Sons," and under it "Charles F. Parker & Co."
Trial in the Superior Court before Rockwell, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:
The note in suit was signed by Alexander Law, indorsed by him in the firm name of John Savery's Sons, and by Charles H Demerritt in the name of Charles F. Parker & Co., a firm doing business in Boston, of which firm he was a member; at maturity thereof due demand was made and notice given, and no part of the note has been paid.
Law, at the time the note was made and negotiated, was a member of the firm of Charles F. Parker & Co., and he and the other defendants were members of the firm of John Savery's Sons. The sole business of this firm was the manufacture of hollow iron ware in Jersey City, and the sale thereof at its place of business in the city of New York. Law had for many years been the manager and head of the firm, and had signed its name in the ordinary course of its business; but the firm had never, during all tat time, made or issued any promissory notes or other negotiable paper, nor indorsed any notes except that it indorsed for collection such notes as it received from its customers; and, since May 1876, Law, by arrangement among the partners of the firm, had been deprived of the right to sign checks upon the bank in New York in which the funds of the firm had been deposited, and the bank had been notified to that effect; but the plaintiff had no knowledge of this fact, and no notice or ground of suspicion of any want of authority in Law to use the name of the firm in the ordinary course of business.
The note in suit was brought to the banking-house of the plaintiff on February 3, 1877, before its maturity, by John Demerritt, who procured at the time a loan from the plaintiff of $ 2200 upon his own note for that amount, payable on demand to the bank, and deposited the note in suit as collateral security therefor. No part of the loan to Demerritt has been paid.
The plaintiff had previously discounted negotiable paper bearing the name of John Savery's Sons, which had been paid in due course of business, but which had been in fact issued by Law without the knowledge or authority of any of his partners, and paid without their knowledge that it ever existed; and the plaintiff had inquired into the standing of the firm of John Savery's Sons, and found it to be unquestioned.
The note in suit was, in fact, made, indorsed and issued by Law without the knowledge, consent or authority of any other member of the firm of John Savery's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank v. Garage Factory Equip. Co.
...and the person who takes it is chargeable with knowledge that the indorsement is an accommodation indorsement. National Bank of Commonwealth v. Law, 127 Mass. 72. See also Harrington v. Baker, 173 Mass. 488 .’ Although that decision was rendered respecting negotiable instruments made subseq......
-
Walker v. Dunham
... ... Ellis Walker, one hundred and ten dollars, at the ... National Bank of Rolla, with interest from maturity at the ... rate of eight per ... ...
-
Phipps v. Harding
...upon the same footing with an indorser. The statute was thus construed by the supreme judicial court of that commonwealth in Bank v. Law, 127 Mass. 72, prior to the execution the contract in question. We are, of course, bound by that construction. Louisville, N.O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Mississipp......
-
Rockfield v. Bank
...on the back thereof shall be entitled to notice of non-payment the same as an indorser." Massachusetts Statutes, 1874, Ch. 404; Bank v. Law et al., 127 Mass. 72; California Code, 3117; Fessenden v. Summers et al., 62 Cal. 484; Fisk v. Miller, 63 Cal. 367. The following states and territorie......