West Roxbury Co-Op Bank v. Bowser

• Decision Date: 30 June 1949
• Citation: 87 N.E.2d 113,324 Mass. 489
• Parties: WEST ROXBURY CO-OP BANK v. BOWSER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

324 Mass. 489

87 N.E.2d 113

WEST ROXBURY CO-OP BANK

v.BOWSER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued May 4, 1949.

Decided June 30, 1949.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; O'Connell, Judge.

Action by West Roxbury Co-operative Bank against Bliss B. Bowser and another upon note, secured by mortgage of realty, to recover deficiency after foreclosure sale. Verdict for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, DOLAN, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.

E. M. Joyce, Boston, for plaintiff.

J. R. Wheatley, Brockton, for defendant.

SPALDING, Justice.

This is an action upon a promissory note, secured by a mortgage of real estate, to recover a deficiency after a foreclosure sale. The defendants were the original makers of the note. It was agreed that if the plaintiff was entitled to prevail the amount of recovery should be the sum set forth in the declaration. Numerous defences, including the statute of limitations, were pleaded by the defendants, but most of them were not relied on at the trial. In his opening counsel for the defendants stated that the only question was, ‘Was the note a witnessed note?’ Despite that concession the case seems to have been tried not only on the issue of whether the action was seasonably brought but also on the issue of the plaintiff's good faith in the foreclosure of the mortgage. The defendants had a verdict and the case comes here on the plaintiff's exceptions to certain rulings made by the judge during the trial.

1. The plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict was rightly denied. One of the issues was whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations. If the case was governed by the twenty year provision, which would be applicable if the note were witnessed, since the plaintiff is the original payee, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 260, § 1, Third, the action was seasonably brought.¹ If, on the other hand, the six year provision is applicable the action was barred, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 260, § 2, First, and the plaintiff makes no contention to the contrary. The evidence on this issue was as follows: Mr. Stevenson, whose name appears on the note as a witness, testified that the note was signed in his presence by the defendants and that he signed his name as witness in their presence. One of the defendants testified that ‘he didn't see anyone sign as having witnessed his signature on the note; [and] that he didn't authorize anyone to witness his signature’ on it.

‘In order to constitute an attestation of a note, within the statute, the witness must put his name to it openly, and under circumstances which reasonably indicate, that his signature is with the knowledge of the promisor, and is a part of the same transaction with the making of the note.’ Drury v. Vannevar, 1 Cush. 276, 277. Whether the attestation of the note in question met the requirements of the rule just stated was a question for the jury to determine on all the evidence. Swazey v. Allen, 115 Mass. 594;Tompson v. Fisher, 123 Mass. 559, 560;Phillips v. Vorenberg, 259 Mass. 46, 68, 156 N.E. 61;L. Grossman Sons, Inc., v. Rudderham, 319 Mass. 698, 699, 67 N.E.2d 406. The case is not governed by Alpert v. Radner, 293 Mass. 109, 199 N.E. 407, on which the plaintiff relies. In that case it was held that the defendant, by admitting in his answer the delivery by him of a note which purported to be witnessed, was estopped under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 107, § 88, from contending that the note was not duly witnessed. That principle is not applicable here. There is nothing in the defendants' answer which can be construed to constitute an admission that the instrument sued on was delivered by them as a witnessed note. The Radner case did not purport to impair the authority of cases such as Swazey v. Allen, 115 Mass. 594,Tompson v. Fisher, 123 Mass. 559, and Phillips v. Vorenberg, 259 Mass. 46, 156 N.E. 61, cited above. Referring to these cases the court said, ‘There is a line of cases * * * in which it has been held that both the genuineness of the alleged witness' signature and whether in fact he witnessed the signature of the maker present questions for the jury. We do not doubt the correctness of these decisions as applied to cases where these issues are open to the defendant’, 293 Mass. at page 122, 199 N.E. at page 408.

2. The plaintiff contends that there was no evidence of lack of good faith ² on its part in connection with the foreclosure of the mortgage and that the judge erred in submitting this issue to the jury. This point was raised by the plaintiff's third request which asked for an instruction that ‘the only consideration for the jury is-has the plaintiff proved that the note is a witnessed note.’ This request was refused, subject to the plaintiff's exception, the judge stating that it was covered by the charge and given in substance. But an examination of the charge, which is before us, reveals that this instruction was not given in substance and that the judge submitted the issue of bad faith to the jury. Indeed, the major portion of the charge was devoted to a discussion of that issue. This exception must be sustained.

The evidence bearing on that issue is as follows: The note and mortgage were delivered to the plaintiff by the defendants in 1927 in consideration of a loan of $4,500. ‘The note * * * is the cooperative bank type mortgage note, secured by co-operative bank shares.’ In 1929 the defendants transferred the property which was the subject of the mortgage to James and Olga Challoner and ‘took a second mortgage for $500.’ The Challoners, it seems, owned the equity in the property when the mortgage was foreclosed. At that time, February 19, 1935, the mortgage was in default and the amount due on the note was $4,942.80. ‘The property was advertised for sale under the power of sale’ contained to the mortgage. Representatives of the plaintiff (but apparently nobody else) attended the sale and it was sold to the plaintiff, the highest bidder, for $3,000. One Deming, an assistant treasurer of the plaintiff...