Parker v. Roberts

Decision Date29 November 1922
PartiesPARKER v. ROBERTS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.

Action by George W. Parker against Blanche M. Roberts on a promissory note for $300. Finding for plaintiff, and case reported to the Appellate Division. From an order dismissing the report, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The answer contained a general denial, and a denial of signature and consideration, and also alleged fraud. The note sued on bore a blank indorsement by the payee and two special indorsements, the second of which was canceled. There was evidence that the consideration for the note was legal services performed in Boston, and that the payee was a member of the bar of Illinois, but not of Massachusetts. Plaintiff requested the following rulings of law, all of which were allowed:

(1) If the plaintiff is a holder of the note in question in due course, the matter of the consideration of that note is immaterial.

(2) No evidence has been presented that plaintiff is not a holder in due course.

(3) The payee of the note, Edwin K. Smith, is legally entitled to remuneration for services as attorney, if such services are performed, notwithstanding the fact that he is not a member of the bar of Massachusetts, if he is a member of the bar of another state. See Brooks v. Association of Master Pilots, 233 Mass. 168, 123 N. E. 511.

(4) The bearer of a note indorsed in blank is presumed to be a holder in due course. See G. L. ch. 107, § 31.’

The defendant requested the following rulings of law, all of which were refused:

(1) On all the evidence there must be a finding for the defendant.

(2) The note in said Smith's hands is without consideration and he was not a holder in due course.

(3) The burden is on the plaintiff to show that he is a holder in due course, or that some person under whom he claims is a holder in due course, and the plaintiff has not maintained this burden.

(4) As far as the evidence shows the plaintiff is simply an agent for the collection for E. K. Smith, and has no greater rights than E. K. Smith.

(5) The plaintiff is not a holder in due course.’Richard J. Lane, of Boston, for appellant.

Charles F. Choate, 3d, of Boston, for appellee.

BRALEY, J.

[3] The payee to whose order the promissory note in suit was made payable having indorsed it in blank before maturity, the plaintiff's possession of the note which he produced at the trial would be sufficient evidence of title on which to maintain the action if no further indorsement written on the instrument itself or upon a paper attached thereto appeared. G. L. c. 107, §§ 31, 54; Way v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 412, 63 Am. Dec. 760;Jump v. Leon, 192 Mass. 511, 78 N. E. 532,116 Am. St. Rep. 265;Massachusetts National Bank v. Snow, 187 Mass. 159, 162, 72 N. E. 959;Leavitt v. Wintman, 234 Mass. 248, 125 N. E. 390;Bovarnick v. Davis, 235 Mass. 195, 126 N. E. 380. But the record states that the payee transferred the note ‘for value * * * to a bank in Illinois' and the immediate indorsement on the back of the note is:

‘Pay the Corn Exchange Nat. Bank, Ill., or order. First National Bank, Milford, Ill., G. F. Patterson, Cashier.’

The indorsement directly following, ‘Pay to the order of any bank or banker, all prior indorsements guaranteed. The Corn Exchange National Bank of Chicago, Ill.’-and signed by its cashier, is stamped ‘Cancelled’ across the stamp. It did not appear in what manner the plaintiff became the holder, even if the payee deposed ‘that the plaintiff was the legal holder of the note at the time suit was begun,’ and on the face of the note and the indorsements title apparently remained in the Corn Exchange National Bank. G. L. c. 107, §§ 53, 54; Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. 63, 67. ‘The court found for the plaintiff on the declaration,’ which alleges the making and tenor of the note and that the payee ‘indorsed said note in blank,’ and ‘the plaintiff is the holder thereof.’ By R. L. c. 73, § 65, now G. L. c. 107, § 71:

‘The holder may strike out every indorsement which is not necessary to his title. The indorser whose indorsement is struck out and all indorsers subsequent to his are thereby relieved from liability on the instrument.’

The right of the plaintiff to omit tracing his title in the declaration through all subsequent indorsers, and to allege that he is the holder under the previous blank indorsement is conferred by the statute. Leavitt v. Wintman, 234 Mass. 248, 250, 125 N. E. 390;Jerman v. Edwards, 29 App. D. C. 535. The note ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rose-Derry Corp.. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 December 1934
    ...N. E. 380. The holder of a note is presumed to be the owner regardless of the fact it bears his indorsement in blank, Parker v. Roberts, 243 Mass. 174, 137 N. E. 295, or to a named person. Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat. 172, 4 L. Ed. 362;Loveland v. Havlena, 50 N. D. 157, 195 N. W. 12, 30......
  • Dodge v. Bowen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 30 June 1928
    ...contrary this is enough to support the burden of proof resting on the plaintiff to show he was a holder in due course. Parker v. Roberts, 243 Mass. 174, 177, 137 N. E. 295;Farber v. Sackett, 255 Mass. 569, 570, 152 N. E. 54. G. L. c. 107, § 82, however, further provides: ‘* * * But when it ......
  • Back Bay Nat. Bank v. Brickley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 5 January 1926
    ...v. Phoenix Rattan Co. 168 Mass. 570, 572, 47 N. E. 241;Fillebrown v. Hayward, 190 Mass. 472, 482, 77 N. E. 45;Parker v. Roberts, 243 Mass. 174, 177, 137 N. E. 295. As the verdict for the plaintiff could not properly have been directed, and as the case should have been submitted to the jury,......
  • Parker v. Roberts
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 29 November 1922
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT