Robertson v. Rowell

• Decision Date: 06 January 1893
• Citation: 32 N.E. 898,158 Mass. 94
• Parties: ROBERTSON et al. v. ROWELL et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

158 Mass. 94

32 N.E. 898

ROBERTSON et al. v. ROWELL et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

January 6, 1893

The following is the written agreement referred to in the opinion: "This agreement, made this day, between D.L. Robertson, of Glenn Falls, N.Y., party of the first part, and W.B. Rowell, of Boston, Mass., party of the second part, witnesseth that, provided the party of the second part pays in full five notes of seventy-four dollars and nine cents ($74.09) each, dated May 15, 1888, and due respectively in three, six, nine, twelve, and fifteen months, to the aforesaid party of the first part, such payments are to be considered a settlement in full between the aforesaid D.L Robertson and W.B. Rowell, for all claims that either may have on the other up to the present date. Should payment fail to be made of any or all of these notes the account will stand as it did previous to this agreement, substantially as per account in ledger of the Glen Shirt & Collar Co. In witness whereunto we have hereby signed our respective names this 14th day of May, 1888. [ Signed] D.L. ROBERTSON. W.B ROWELL."

COUNSEL

Smith & Ludden, for plaintiffs.

W.H. Powers, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The only question reserved by this report is whether the bill should be dismissed on the ground that the notes as against the defendant Elizabeth B. Rowell, were without consideration. A written agreement was made between the plaintiff Robertson and William B. Rowell, the husband of the female defendant, referring to the notes set out in the bill, and providing that, if paid to the said Robertson, they should be a settlement in full of all claims between the parties up to that date; but, if any of them should not be paid, the account should stand as stated in the ledger of Robertson. The notes were signed by William B. Rowell, and made payable to the order of Elizabeth B. Rowell, and on the back of each was written the words, "I hereby charge my separate estate with the amount of this note." The agreement and all the notes were signed by William B. Rowell, and were left with Robertson. A week or two afterwards, Mr. Rowell brought his wife into the city, and she went with him to the office of Robertson, and put her name on the back of each of the notes, under the words written there. Robertson was away, but had left the papers with his bookkeeper. It is evident from the form of the notes, and from the written agreement, that they were left incomplete, and were not designed to be held as contracts until signed by Mrs. Rowell. They were payable to her order, and were to be indorsed by her before they would be in a condition to be used by Robertson. We do not understand the court to find that the papers were delivered as binding contracts when they were left with Robertson, but merely left with him to be held for completion by the signature of Mrs. Rowell, and for future delivery. It is apparent that the transaction was inchoate until the notes were signed by her, and the papers subsequently delivered to take effect as contracts. It is also manifest that she intended to lend her credit to her husband. It is found that it was a part of the original agreement that she should do so. That there was such an oral agreement is competent evidence, in connection with the other facts, to show that...