Woodman v. Boothby

• Decision Date: 27 November 1876
• Citation: 66 Me. 389
• Parties: FREDERICK S. WOODMAN v. LEVI T. BOOTHBY and trustees. 1876.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

66 Me. 389

FREDERICK S. WOODMAN v. LEVI T. BOOTHBY and trustees.

1876.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

November 27, 1876

ON REPORT.

ASSUMPSIT on this note:

" $275. Fairfield, Me., April 30, 1873.

Four months after date, I promise to pay to the order of William W. Rideout & Co, two hundred seventy-five dollars, at either bank in Waterville, with interest. Value received.

No. 4,907. William W. Rideout.

[INDORSEMENT.]

L. T Boothby. Holden without demand or notice. Wm. W. Rideout & Co."

Plea: never promised, with a brief statement of want of notice, payment and that the note was indorsed without consideration.

The books of the firm of Rideout & Co. and other evidence tended to show that the note was made by Rideout in payment of that amount of personal indebtedness to the firm and so applied.

It was procured to be discounted at the People's National Bank of Waterville, by R. Woodman, a member of the firm of William W. Rideout & Co. It was subsequently dishonored, and paid by Woodman; and for a time after payment left at the bank and then taken and delivered to the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion sufficiently to raise the legal points decided.

S S. Brown, for the plaintiff.

This is a valid form of note. Heywood v. Wingate, 14 N.H. 73.

The plaintiff claims that the note was given to the firm of Rideout & Co. to pay debt owed by Rideout to the firm.

The defendant's claim, that the note was signed by him to accommodate the firm, is not supported by the evidence.

Want of consideration between the defendant and the firm is no defense, if proved; even if plaintiff bought the note over due with knowledge of the fact that it was an accommodation note, as between the defendant and the firm. Story on Promissory Notes, § 194. Thompson v. Shepherd, 12 Met. 311. 1 Daniels on Negotiable Securities, 592, 540.

When the firm redeemed the note of the bank they became the lawful holders as much as if they had never parted with it. 3 Kent's Com. 89, and authorities cited in note.

The defendant can not change the legal effect and character of note by parol proof of any agreement between him and Rideout made at date of note. Warren Academy v. Starrett, 15 Me. 443. Porter v. Porter, 51 Me. 376.

F. A. Waldron, for the defendants, contended that the note was not given for Rideout's private indebtedness; that it was indorsed for the accommodation of the firm at the request of one of its members, and without consideration, that he was liable only as indorser; and that when the bank received its money, his liability was at an end.

APPLETON C. J.

This is an action upon a promissory note payable to W. W. Rideout & Co. or order on four months, signed by W. W. Rideout and given for the sum of two hundred seventy-five dollars. Upon the back of this note, the defendant, before its delivery to the payees, placed his name; and by so doing became a joint promisor with said Rideout. The law is well settled that when one not otherwise a party to a note puts his name upon the back at the request of the maker and before its delivery to the payee, he thereby becomes promisor. Malbon v. Southard, 36 Me. 147. Lowell v. Gage, 38 Me. 35. Martin v. Boyd, 11 N.H. 385. Austin v. Boyd, 24 Pick. 64.

The note being delivered to the payees was negotiated by them at a bank in Waterville; it not having been paid at maturity, they, as indorsers, were obliged to take it up, which they did and then passed it by delivery to the present plaintiff.

The bank at which the note was negotiated before its maturity acquired a good title and could have enforced its collection. It mattered not that the defendant was an accommodation signer. Can the present plaintiff maintain this suit?

It is objected that the note was given to a firm of which the maker...