Stevens v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 05 April 1888 |
| Citation | 80 Me. 351,14 A. 741 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. PARSONS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On agreed statement of facts from superior court, Cumberland county.
Assumpsit on a promissory note of the following tenor: Indorsed on the back: This was the condition of the note when negotiated to and taken by the plaintiff, and he was the first taker. The suit was brought against I. H. Parsons.
Frank W. Robinson, for plaintiff. L. M. Webb, for defendant.
The only question in this case is whether the defendant is an original promisor or an indorser of the note declared on. The note, upon its face and back, is as follows: On the back: In addition to what appears on the note, the parties agree "that the above indorsements are in the same order, form, and condition, in all respects, in which they were made at the inception of the note; and that said note was delivered to the plaintiff, at or about the day of its date, for a good and sufficient consideration." A promissory note made payable to the order of the maker has no payee, and is not a valid contract till indorsed by the maker, and negotiated to some one as payee. Smalley v. Wight, 44 Me. 442; Little v. Rogers, 1 Metc. 108. The indorsement may be in blank, or special to some one named. If in blank, it becomes a note payable to bearer. If special, the one named becomes the payee. In the first case it passes to the taker by delivery, or by the indorsement of the bearer; in the second case it can be transferred only by the indorsement of the payee named. Little v. Rogers, 1 Metc. 108; Masters v. Baretto, 8 C. B. 433: Brown v. De Winton, 6 C. B.336; Gay v. Lander, Id. 336; Hooper v. Williams, 2 Exch. 13; Absolon v. Marks, 11 Q. B. 19. The same person cannot be payor and payee of a promissory note, nor can he be maker and indorser, in the legal sense of the word. By his formal indorsement the maker merely designates the payee. It is the equivalent of filling up a blank left for the purpose in the face of the note. The nature of the obligation which one whose name is on the note assumes to the taker of it must be determined by the note itself as it was when negotiated. Bigelow v. Colton, 13 Gray, 309; Clapp v. Rice, Id. 403; Dubois v. Mason, 127 Mass. 37. It is the well-settled law of this state that one not appearing to be a party to a note as payee or indorser, who puts his name on the back of it in blank, at its inception and before negotiated, is a joint and several promisor. But if the note is payable to bearer a different rule prevails. In such case, one who puts his name on the back of the note must be held to be the bearer and indorser. This is the legal construction of the contract, and it cannot be varied by parol. Bigelow v. Colton, Clapp v. Rice, and Dubois v. Mason, supra. Applying these rules of law to the case at bar, it appears that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salisbury v. First National Bank of Cambridge City
...555; Sibley v. Muskegon Nat. Bank, 41 Mich. 196; Derry Bank v. Baldwin, 41 N.H. 434; Schroeder v. Turner, 13 A. 331 [Md.]; Stevens v. Parsons, 14 A. 741 [Me.]; Falls Nat. Bank v. Dorset Marble Co., 61 Vt. 106; Cahn v. Dutton, 60 Mo. 297; Schmidt v. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502; Bradford v. Martin......
-
Yates v. Goodwin
...the back, under the indorsement of the maker, becomes an indorser only, and is liable only on proof of demand and notice. Stevens v. Parsons, 80 Me. 351, 14 Atl. 741. Accordingly, the defendant was an indorser, and was entitled to have demand made upon the principal, and notice given to him......
-
Wescott v. Stevens
...was already on the note, a fortiori the defendant should be held to a completed contract, on which plaintiff paid his money. Stevens v. Parsons, 80 Me. 351, 14 Atl. Rep. 741; Colburn v. Averill, 30 Me. 310; Dubois v. Mason, 127 Moss. 37; Bigelow v. Col ton, 13 Gray, 309; Howe v. Merrill, 5 ......