Seager v. Drayton

• Decision Date: 21 May 1914
• Citation: 105 N.E. 461,217 Mass. 571
• Parties: SEAGER et al. v. DRAYTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

217 Mass. 571

105 N.E. 461

SEAGER et al. v. DRAYTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 21, 1914

COUNSEL

Sawin & Lawrence, of Boston, for plaintiffs.

Arthur P. Teele, of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

CROSBY J.

This is an action upon a promissory note, signed by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiffs which had been given in renewal of a previous note upon the maturity of the latter, at which time the defendant made a partial payment thereon and gave the note sued on for the balance. The defendant contends that the note is without consideration. The case was tried by a judge of the superior court without a jury, who found for the defendant. The plaintiff requested the court so rule 'that upon all the evidence a verdict should be rendered for the plaintiff.' This was refused, and the plaintiff excepted.

The evidence shows that the defendant's employer, Wright owed the plaintiffs an account for hay and grain furnished by them to Wright, and that Wright gave them a note in part payment of the account, and that upon the maturity of the note, Wright failing to pay it and the plaintiffs having refused to renew it, the defendant, at the request of the plaintiff Loring, gave to the plaintiffs his (the defendant's) note for the amount due upon the note given by Wright. The defendant testified that when he delivered the first note to the plaintiff Loring, the latter said 'that he had to show his partner something, and if he had my note he would be perfectly satisfied.' It is the contention of the plaintiff that there was a valid consideration for the note (1) because of the forbearance of the plaintiffs to sue Wright; (2) because the defendant's note was given in substitution of the note given by Wright and thereby constituted a novation; and (3) because the note of the defendant was given to the plaintiffs as creditors of the debtor Wright in payment of, or as security for, the debt due from Wright to the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs' proof was sufficient to establish either of these contentions, they would be entitled to recover. Boyd v. Freize, 5 Gray, 553; Manter v. Churchill, 127 Mass. 31 33; Neal v. Wilson, 213 Mass. 336, 100 N.E. 544. As the defendant denied that there was a consideration for the note, the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs. Lombard v. Bryne, 194 Mass. 236, 80 N.E. 489.

Whether there was a valid consideration for the note was a question of fact...