Willis v. French

• Decision Date: 18 August 1892
• Citation: 84 Me. 593,24 A. 1010
• Parties: WILLIS v. FRENCH et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 1010

84 Me. 593

WILLIS

v. FRENCH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 18, 1892.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Franklin county.

Assumpsit by Mitchell Willis against Sumner and Charles W. French, as indorsers of certain town orders. Defendants, among other defenses, pleaded the statute of limitations. Verdict for defendants, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions sustained.

April 25, A. D. 1870, the town of Kingfield passed the following vote.

"Voted, that the town loan to Sumner French and Charles W. French, proprietors of the saw and shingle mill privileges, the sum of two thousand dollars, ten years without interest, in orders or bonds to be issued by the selectmen, payable to S. & C. W. French or order, in ten years from date, with interest annually, upon conditions and with the understanding that said S. & C. W. French obligate themselves to rebuild their proportion of the dam, abutments, headworks, and canal, erect and complete a saw mill, including a shingle mill, on their privileges at said village, in and within eight months from the first day of June next; and that said S. & C. W. French shall make, execute, and deliver their promissory notes for the said sum of two thousand dollars to the inhabitants of the town, and a mortgage deed of their said privileges, mills, and interest in dam, abutments, and headworks for the security of payment, such notes to be paid at the expiration of said ten years. Orders or bonds for one-fourth part of said sum to be issued to them on the 1st day of June next, one-fourth part when said dam and abutment and headworks are completed, and the remainder when their said mill shall be erected and boarded "

Under this vote, two town orders for $500 each, dated June 1, 1870, payable to the order of S. & C. W. French, were issued by the selectmen of Kingfield, accepted by the town treasurer, and delivered to the payees. Subsequently the payees, the defendants in this action, indorsed and delivered both orders, for value, to the plaintiff. The annual interest on the orders was paid by the town to the plaintiff until June 1, 1875, when the town defaulted, and there afterward refused to pay interest. After June 1, 1880, the plaintiff demanded payment of the principal from the town treasurer, and payment was refused.

The defendants fulfilled all the conditions imposed upon them by vote of the town, and executed and delivered to the town the notes and mortgage referred to in the vote above set forth. At the commencement of this action no part of the notes, principal, or interest had been paid by the defendants. The mortgage and notes were then held, and continued to be held, by the town unpaid, undischarged, and without action of any kind. The presiding justice, in his charge, instructed the jury that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued at the date of the first failure of the town to pay the annual interest. The plaintiff seasonably requested an instruction that the cause of action accrued at the maturity of the orders, June 1, 1880, and that no right of action for the principal accrued until that date. Both of these requests were refused.

H. M. Heath and J. C. Holman, for plaintiff.

J. H. Thompson for defendants.

HASKELL, J. The payee of a negotiable promise in writing, who transfers the same by indorsement, either before or after maturity, whether it be strictly commercial paper or quasi such,—that is, negotiable in form but lacking some elements of such paper, as town orders, always subject to equitable defenses whosoever the holder may be,—thereby guaranties both the genuineness of the writing and the validity of the promise. If the writing be forged, or the promise be void, as ultra vires, the indorsee may elect to repudiate the contract of indorsement...