Whitmore v. Nickerson
Decision Date | 21 October 1878 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Charles O. Whitmore & another v. Joshua G. Nickerson & others |
Argued November 13, 1877
Suffolk. Contract against Joshua G. Nickerson, Harrison Loring and F. H. Smith on the following promissory note Indorsed "Harrison Loring, F. H. Smith."
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., without a jury, it appeared that on April 10, 1875, Nickerson applied to Loring for his indorsement of the note of the firm of J G. Nickerson & Co., a firm consisting of Nickerson and T. B. Wales, Jr. Loring consented, wrote the note in suit, signed it as indorser, and left it with his bookkeeper, with instructions to deliver it to Nickerson upon his signing it with the firm name. Nickerson soon afterwards obtained it from the bookkeeper, signed it with his own name, saying he could get his partner to sign it with him, but preferred not to give a firm note. Loring was not informed of the manner in which the note was signed till shortly before it became due. Nickerson, having obtained the note, offered it at a bank for discount, but, observing that it read "we promise," did not leave it there, but took it to Smith, procured Smith's signature under his own name as a promisor, and then offered it again at the bank. The cashier of the bank pointed out to him that it was not drawn as a joint and several, but as a partnership note, and that Smith ought to have signed as indorser, and Nickerson thereupon took it back to Smith and requested him to erase his name from the face of the note, and sign it as second indorser. Smith's name was accordingly erased from the face of the note, and put on the back under Loring's. Nickerson then returned the note to the bank, which, however, did not discount it, but the cashier put it into the hands of a broker, who sold it to the plaintiffs at the usual discount, and paid the proceeds to the cashier, who paid them to Nickerson.
The plaintiffs bought the note in good faith, without any knowledge of the foregoing facts, and without observing that the note read "we promise," or that there was an erasure under the signature of the promisor. The plaintiffs bought the note relying solely on Loring's indorsement, and did not read it, but only looked to see that it was indorsed by Loring.
The defendant Loring asked the judge to rule as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schuling v. Ervin
...Iowa 396, 98 N.W. 139. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a note joint in form was intended to be joint and several. Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 Mass. 496. to the weight of authority, as well as under the provisions of our Negotiable Instruments Act, if a plaintiff sue upon a note whi......
-
Schuling v. Ervin
...98 N. W. 139. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a note joint in form was intended to be joint and several. Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 Mass. 496, 28 Am. Rep. 257. According to the weight of authority, as well as under the provisions of our Negotiable Instruments Act, if a plaintiff s......
-
Boston Steel & Iron Co. v. Steuer
... ... of such a paper, which is filled before it is negotiated, has ... the rights of a purchaser for value without notice. See ... Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 Mass. 496, 28 Am. Rep ... 257; Binney v. Globe National Bank, 150 Mass. 574, ... 23 N.E. 380, 6 L. R. A. 379 ... ...
-
McCormick v. Holmes
... ... against plaintiff if he is the purchaser of the note in good ... faith before maturity. (Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 ... Mass. 496; Clarke v. Johnson, 54 Ill. 296; ... Burson v. Huntington, 21 Mich. 415; Angle v ... Insurance Co., 92 U.S. 330; ... ...