Putnam Nat. Bank v. Snow

• Decision Date: 03 March 1899
• Citation: 52 N.E. 1079,172 Mass. 569
• Parties: PUTNAM NAT. BANK v. SNOW et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 569

52 N.E. 1079

PUTNAM NAT. BANK v. SNOW et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 3, 1899

COUNSEL

Williams & Copeland, for plaintiff.

Sherman L. Whipple and C.W. Bond, for defendants.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

The finding was for the plaintiff on the ninth count for the three drafts that were drawn for oranges from the "Hard Bargain Grove," at $1.10 per box, and the exceptions are to the refusal to give the rulings requested, so far as they related to that count. The other counts, and the rulings relating to them, are immaterial. The ninth count was upon a promise to accept, and alleged, in substance, a provision in writing by the defendants to Long to accept and pay drafts drawn by him on them equal to $1.10 per box of oranges shipped, and also a verbal promise to the plaintiff to accept and pay such drafts; and that, relying on their written and verbal promises, the defendants discounted the drafts in suit for Long, and upon presentation the defendants refused to accept or pay them.

One question is whether there was any evidence to warrant the finding. The letters of October 8th and November 30th from the defendants to Long, which were shown by him to plaintiff's cashier, plainly imply authority on the part of Long, if they do not expressly confer it, to draw on the defendants for the fruit that he was to ship. There was also evidence tending to show that one of the defendants told plaintiff's cashier, in substance, that Long was to purchase and ship fruit for his house, that he had authority to draw on the house at Boston, and that his drafts would be honored; and later in the trial this defendant testified among other things, "that there was an agreement, as to the oranges from a grove known as 'Hard Bargain Grove,' that Snow & Co. would advance $1.10 per box while Long should keep his account margined up." The letter of November 30th also spoke of a draft at the rate of $1.10 per box. Long denied that anything was said to him about keeping his account margined up, and further testified "that he drew many drafts on the defendants, *** which were discounted with the plaintiff bank, and paid by Snow & Co., during the months of October, November, and December, 1894." We think that there was evidence warranting a finding that Long had authority to draw the drafts in question, and that the plaintiff discounted them on the faith of assurances made to it by the defendants that drafts drawn by Long would be accepted and paid.

It is clear that, in the absence of any statute to the contrary an oral acceptance of an existing bill of exchange is valid in this country, and that an indorser of a bill so accepted may maintain an action on such acceptance against the acceptor. Cook v. Baldwin, 120 Mass. 317; Pierce v. Kittredge, 115 Mass. 374; Bank v. Rice, 98 Mass. 288; Carnegie v. Morrison, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 381; Coolidge v. Payson, 2 Wheat. 66; Townsley v. Sumrall, ...