Sanfacon v. Gagnon
| Decision Date | 12 July 1933 |
| Citation | 167 A. 695 |
| Parties | SANFACON v. GAGNON et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Aroostook County.
Action by Florent Sanfacon against H. A. Gagnon and another. Finding for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and THAXTER, JJ.
R. W. Shaw, of Houlton, for plaintiff.
J. B. Pelletier, of Van Buren, and B. Archibald, of Houlton, for defendant.
The parties to this suit were accommodation indorsers of a promissory note for $2,000 given on August 5, 1931, to the First National Bank of Van Buren and payable four months after date. The plaintiff, having paid the note in full before maturity, took an assignment of it by the indorsement without recourse of the payee, and here seeks to recover over against his coindorsers. They plead the general issue and, by a brief statement, set up the defense of payment and a discharge of their liability by release. The case was heard by a single justice with jury waived. Exceptions to a finding for the defendants brings the case to the law court.
A brief summary of the evidence in this case seems sufficient The maker of the note in controversy was Mary J. Gagnon, the daughter of the plaintiff, and the defendants were the parents of A. J. Gagnon, her husband. On or about April 1, 1931, Mrs. Gagnon purchased a millinery and dry goods store in Madawaska, and the original note, of which that in suit is a renewal, was given to help finance this transaction. The business venture was not a success. On July 25, 1931, Mrs. Gagnon, being heavily in debt and pressed by her creditors, gave her father, the plaintiff, a mortgage of $12,000 on her stock of merchandise, household furniture, and an automobile, and he undertook to pay her debts and reimburse himself for his own advances. The note at the bank of April 1, 1931, was not paid when it came due, but renewed by a new note which the defendants indorsed. The plaintiff paid this note on December 4, 1931, as already noted.
Witnesses testified that the plaintiff informed the defendants in advance that he was going to take the mortgage from his daughter and assume all her debts. There is evidence that, after the mortgage was given, the plaintiff said that he had assumed these debts and the first note that would be taken care of was the one in controversy. The plaintiff claims that the defendants were originally joint indorsers and agreed to remain liable as cosureties after he acquired it. He denies that he assumed and agreed to pay the note or release the defendants.
A reading of the briefs indicates that the plaintiff's real complaint is that the decision below was against the weight of the evidence. That question is not open on this review. In cases heard by the court without a jury, the right of exception is limited to rulings upon questions of law and does not include opinions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Mitchell
...me arrested." The weight of this evidence was for the presiding Justice (Pettengill v. Shoenbar, 84 Me. 104, 24 A. 584; Sanfacon v. Gagnon, 132 Me. Ill, 113, 167 A. 695), and in passing upon it, he had the right to take into consideration not only the appearance of the libelant while on the......
-
Blue Rock Industries v. Raymond Intern., Inc.
...Justice found for the appellee on all factual issues necessarily involved in the decision. Jacobs v. Boomer, supra, Sanfacon v. Gagnon, 1933, 132 Me. 111, 167 A. 695. Consistent with familiar principles, the findings thus assumed to have been made will not be set aside by this Court unless ......
-
Friedt v. City of Detroit, 146
...the trial court 'finds facts without evidence or contrary to the only conclusion which may be drawn from the evidence', Sanfacon v. Gagnon, 132 Me. 111, 167 A. 695, 696. Our Court is in full accord. "A finding," we have held, "unsupported by evidence will be considered erroneous in law." Fi......
-
Everett v. Rand
...without evidence or contrary to the only conclusion which may be drawn from the evidence is there any error of law.' Sanfacon v. Gagnon, 132 Me. 111, 113, 167 A. 695, 696, 'The findings of fact of a single justice are final and binding if supported by any credible evidence.' Green Acre Baha......