Specht v. Howard Et Al

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSWAYNE
Citation21 L.Ed. 348,16 Wall. 564,83 U.S. 564
Decision Date01 December 1872
PartiesSPECHT v. HOWARD ET AL

83 U.S. 564
21 L.Ed. 348
16 Wall. 564
SPECHT
v.
HOWARD ET AL.
December Term, 1872

Page 565

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

Mr. D. K. McRae, for the plaintiff i error; Messrs. R. M. Corwine and Quinton Corwine, contra.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants in error were the plaintiffs in the court below. The action was upon a promissory note made by Jehl & Brother to Specht, and by him indorsed to Howard, Sanger & Co., the plaintiffs. The makers and indorser lived in Memphis. The indorsees lived in the city of New York, and the note was made and indorsed there. No place of payment was mentioned in the note. At its maturity the makers were sought in the city of New York, and not being found, the note was protested for non-payment, and notice was given by mail to the indorser. Upon the trial, after proof of the protest and notice, the plaintiffs offered to prove that at the time the note was drawn, it was agreed between the makers, and Howard, Sanger & Co., that it should be made payable in the city of New York, and that the place of payment was omitted by the mistake of the draughtsman. Specht objected to the admission of the testimony. The objection was overruled and he excepted. The agreement and mistake were proved. Specht then offered to prove that he had not consented that the note should be made payable in New York. The testimony was rejected and he excepted. He then asked the court to rule that the plaintiffs' evidence showed such a change in his contract of indorsement as discharged him from liability. The court refused so to rule, and he excepted. The court then withdrew from the jury the evidence relating to the parol agreement, and ruled that the proof of demand and notice was insufficient to create any liability on the part of the defendant.

Page 566

Specht excepted to the withdrawal of the evidence as to the parol agreement. The plaintiffs then proved that, after the maturity of the note, Specht, with a full knowledge of the defective demand and notice, promised to pay the note. No objection was made to the admission of this testimony, nor to the charge of the court upon the subject. The jury found for the plaintiffs and judgment was rendered accordingly.

The error complained of is, that the court withdrew from the jury the evidence touching the parol agreement as to the place of payment made contemporaneously with the drawing and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • In re Rothenberg, Bankruptcy No. 88-00754
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 3, 1996
    ...of Columbia law); Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U.S. (1 Otto) 291, 294, 23 L.Ed. 352 (1875); Specht v. Howard, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 564, 566, 21 L.Ed. 348 D. Patent Versus Latent The plaintiff also urges that the rule in the District of Columbia long has been that "Extrinsic evidence is not admissi......
  • Greenwich Insurance Company v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 28, 1905
    ...contract. 50 Ark. 406; 58 Ark. 277; 71 F. 476. Parol negotiations leading up to a written contract are merged into the written contract. 16 Wall. 564; 91 U.S. 291; 95 U.S. 474; 96 U.S. 544; 101 U.S. 93; 104 U.S. 30, 252; 106 U.S. 252; 1 S.Ct. 313; 127 U.S. 607; 134 U.S. 306; 141 U.S. 518; 6......
  • James Stewart & Co. v. Newby, 1746.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • April 26, 1920
    ...withdrawal, or by an instruction of the court to disregard it. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564, 21 L.Ed. 348; Union P.R. Co. v. Thomas, 152 F. 371, 81 C.C.A. 491; Armour & Co. v. Kollmeyer, 161 F. 78, 88 C.C.A. 242, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1114; ......
  • Maytag v. Cummins, 4996.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 8, 1919
    ...or by a clear peremptory instruction to the jury to disregard it. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564, 21 L.Ed. 348; Washington Gaslight Co. v. Lansden, 172 U.S. 534, 555, 19 Sup.Ct. 296, 43 L.Ed. 543; Turner v. American Security & Trust Co., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • In re Rothenberg, Bankruptcy No. 88-00754
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 3, 1996
    ...of Columbia law); Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U.S. (1 Otto) 291, 294, 23 L.Ed. 352 (1875); Specht v. Howard, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 564, 566, 21 L.Ed. 348 D. Patent Versus Latent The plaintiff also urges that the rule in the District of Columbia long has been that "Extrinsic evidence is not admissi......
  • Greenwich Insurance Company v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 28, 1905
    ...contract. 50 Ark. 406; 58 Ark. 277; 71 F. 476. Parol negotiations leading up to a written contract are merged into the written contract. 16 Wall. 564; 91 U.S. 291; 95 U.S. 474; 96 U.S. 544; 101 U.S. 93; 104 U.S. 30, 252; 106 U.S. 252; 1 S.Ct. 313; 127 U.S. 607; 134 U.S. 306; 141 U.S. 518; 6......
  • James Stewart & Co. v. Newby, 1746.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • April 26, 1920
    ...withdrawal, or by an instruction of the court to disregard it. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564, 21 L.Ed. 348; Union P.R. Co. v. Thomas, 152 F. 371, 81 C.C.A. 491; Armour & Co. v. Kollmeyer, 161 F. 78, 88 C.C.A. 242, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1114; ......
  • Maytag v. Cummins, 4996.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 8, 1919
    ...or by a clear peremptory instruction to the jury to disregard it. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564, 21 L.Ed. 348; Washington Gaslight Co. v. Lansden, 172 U.S. 534, 555, 19 Sup.Ct. 296, 43 L.Ed. 543; Turner v. American Security & Trust Co., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT