Spaulding v. Putnam
| Decision Date | 05 February 1880 |
| Citation | 128 Mass. 363 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | George E. Spaulding v. J. D. Putnam & another |
Middlesex. Contract against J. D. Putnam and A. E. Conant, as joint promisors upon the following promissory note: Conant's name appeared on the back of the note. Writ dated April 4, 1878. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Putnam, J., who found the following facts:
In 1872, the defendant Putnam owed the plaintiff for wood which the latter had sold to him. The plaintiff called upon him for payment, Putnam asked him to wait a little longer, and the plaintiff then told him that, if he would get a note signed by A. E. Conant, or by one Tripp, he would take such a note on four or six months' time in payment of the account. Putnam replied that he would come in a few days and bring him such a note. He came soon after and handed the plaintiff the note in suit, signed by himself, but with no other name upon it. The plaintiff took it and looked at it, and immediately handed it back to Putnam, saying that he would not take it. Putnam took the note again, said he would see Conant, and called on Conant about a week afterwards, and, producing the note, said, "Mr. Spaulding wishes me to ask you if you will indorse this note for his accommodation, so that he can get it discounted at some bank." Thereupon Conant saying he was willing to indorse the note for Spaulding's accommodation, wrote his name upon the back of it, but without any consideration. The plaintiff did not authorize Putnam to say this to Conant, and did not know of the conversation. In the course of a month, Putnam sent the plaintiff the same note, with the name of Conant upon the back of it. The plaintiff retained the note, and applied it in payment of Putnam's account, and has held the note since that time.
Upon these facts, Conant contended that he was not legally liable on the note; and asked the judge so to rule. The judge declined so to rule; found that Conant pet his name upon the note for the accommodation of Putnam, and not for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and before its acceptance by the plaintiff; and ordered judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note and interest. The defendant Conant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salisbury v. First National Bank of Cambridge City
...647; Western Boatman's Benevolent Association v. Wolff, 45 Mo. 104; Lowell v. Gage, 38 Me. 35; Woods v. Woods, 127 Mass. 141; Spaulding v. Putnam, 128 Mass. 363; Austin Boyd, 24 Pick. [Mass.] 64; Hawks v. Phillips, 7 Gray [Mass.] 284; Semple v. Turner, 65 Mo. 696; Buchner v. Liebig, 38 Mo. ......
-
Goodman v. Gaull
...until the defendant's signature had been affixed. Moore v. Cushing, 162 Mass. 594, 39 N. E. 177,44 Am. St. Rep. 393. See Spaulding v. Putnam, 128 Mass. 363. The signing and delivery of the note made the plaintiff the holder, who could pass title. ‘A negotiable instrument payable to a named ......
-
Bradford v. Prescott
...of the note as it was when negotiated. Stevens v. Parsons, 80 Me. 353, 14 Atl. Rep. 741; Bigelow v. Colton, 13 Gray, 309; Spaulding v. Putnam, 128 Mass. 363, 365. It is the settled doctrine of these states that one not appearing to be a party, either as payee or indorsee, to a note payable ......
-
Cherry v. Sprague
... ... need be proved. Sumner v. Gay, 4 Pick. 311; ... Woods v. Woods, 127 Mass. 141; Spaulding v ... Putnam, 128 Mass. 363. The same considerations ... ...