Woods v. Woods
| Decision Date | 24 June 1879 |
| Citation | 127 Mass. 141 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Henry A. Woods v. Robert P. Woods & others |
Argued July 8, 1878 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Middlesex. Contract against Robert P. Woods and Levi Wallace, copartners doing business under the firm name of Woods & Wallace Henry Parkinson and Charles Tarbell, upon a promissory note for $ 5000, dated July 1, 1873, payable three months after date to the order of, and indorsed by, Henry A. Woods, and signed on the face by Woods & Wallace, and by Parkinson, and on the back by Tarbell, whose name appeared above that of the payee.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., the issues were whether the note in question was wholly or in part paid by Robert P. Woods by two notes for $ 2500 each, or the proceeds thereof, dated October 3, 1873, payable to the order of Henry A. Woods, signed by Robert P. Woods, and indorsed by Henry A. Woods, Alfred Page and Harvey A. Woods, and whether Charles Tarbell was promisor or indorser on the original note.
Walter Fessenden, called by the plaintiff, testified, that he is now and was in 1873 the president of the Townsend National Bank; that the note in suit was discounted by the bank to take up another note signed by the same parties, which was coming due at the bank; that, when the note in suit was coming due, Robert P. and Henry A. Woods had a conversation with him about taking it up, and about a new note or notes for that purpose; that he said he would take a note with the name of Page upon it; that Robert P. said that he and Wallace had agreed, the one to take up a part of the notes signed by them, and the other, another part; that Henry A. said he was going to help Robert P. pay the note in suit; that Robert P. wanted to pay the note in suit by two notes of $ 2500 each, and he agreed to take such notes with Page and Henry A. Woods as indorsers; that, the day before the note in suit came due, Henry A. brought to him the two notes dated October 3, 1873, for $ 2500 each; that Henry A. told him, if Parkinson's name was on the back of the note in suit, to have it protested, but if on the face, to pay it; that he found Parkinson's name on the face, took it up and gave it to Henry A., who said he had done right; and that he kept the two $ 2500 notes and had them discounted at his bank, where they were finally paid, but not until after they had been renewed several times.
Robert P. Woods testified, for the plaintiff, that he and Wallace met Henry A. Woods in Boston, and requested him to indorse a note signed by Woods & Wallace, Parkinson and Tarbell, to take up another note signed by them, coming due at the Townsend Bank; that Henry A. did so, and did so again when the new note came due, until the time when the note in suit was made; that then Henry A. declined to indorse again unless the note was made payable to himself; that he had the note in suit made and signed by the defendants, and carried it to Henry A., who indorsed it; that he then took the note to the Townsend Bank, where it was discounted; that, before the note in suit became due, he said to Henry A. that the parties to the note were not able to pay it, and that he must; that Henry A. said he had not the money then, and could not pay it, but expected the money from a mortgage due him before long, which he could not then get; that he told Henry A. it was safe for him to take it up, for he would hold all the names upon the note; that Henry A. said he knew that, and that if he took it up by giving new notes he need not have the names of the signers of the note in suit upon the new notes; that Henry A. finally consented to indorse the two notes of $ 2500 each, with which to take up the note in suit, and Henry A. paid the new notes; that he did not, nor did Wallace, Parkinson or Tarbell, pay anything towards their payment to Henry A. or to the bank.
On cross-examination, Robert P. testified, that Wallace had proposed to him, at some time prior to the making of the two $ 2500 notes, that each of them should take up a part of the notes signed by them, but that the notes spoken of were only a small part of the debts which they owed; and that the proposition was without consideration, and he agreed to it as a matter of convenience.
The plaintiff also proved that Robert P. Woods and Wallace went into bankruptcy, and put upon their schedule of debts the note in question as due to Henry A. Woods.
Henry Parkinson testified, for the defendants, that he never had any benefit from the note in suit; that it was made for Woods & Wallace for the purpose of raising money at the Townsend Bank; that he never signed it for any other purpose; that Robert P. Woods told him the $ 5000 note in suit had been paid, and that he, Robert, had paid it; that Henry A. said that Robert P. had paid the note in suit; that he saw Henry A. often after the note in suit was due, but he never showed the note, or said that he had it. Parkinson also testified, that he had gone into bankruptcy since the commencement of this action, and that he entered upon the schedule in bankruptcy of his debts the note in suit, as of a debt due by him to Henry A. Woods.
C. R. Dearborn testified, for the defendants, that he had a conversation with Robert P. Woods about the note in suit in the summer of 1874; that Robert P. asked him if Wallace had paid the note in the savings bank in Nashua; that he replied, not all of them, but he had put collateral there to secure them; that Robert P. said that he and Wallace had apportioned their debts between them; that he had paid his half, and was sorry Wallace had not paid his.
Charles Tarbell testified, for the defendants, that he never had any benefit from the note; that it was an accommodation note; that he had a conversation with Robert P. Woods about the note in suit; that Robert P. said he had paid the $ 5000 note by giving two other notes of $ 2500 each; that Alfred Page indorsed the paper for him; that he had some conversation with Henry A. Woods about the two notes, who said that he had told Fessenden that it was nothing that concerned him, as they were Robert's notes; that he had seen Henry A. frequently since the note became due; that he never said anything to him about the note, and he never had notice until he was sued.
Alfred Page testified, for the defendants, that he signed the two $ 2500 notes at the request of Robert P. Woods, who said that he wanted the notes to take up a note that was coming due at the Townsend Bank; that Henry A. Woods did not procure him to be a party to these notes; and that he never signed any paper for him in his life.
Levi Wallace testified, for the defendants, that the note in suit was made to take up another note at the Townsend Bank; that it was not made for the purpose of accommodating Parkinson and Tarbell in any manner; that Robert P. Woods told him he had paid the note in suit, with two other notes; that he had some conversation with Henry A. Woods, who told him that Robert P. had paid the note in question, or had taken it up.
This was all the evidence in the case. The plaintiff contended that, upon the evidence, there was nothing for the jury to determine.
The judge, for the purpose of raising the questions of law involved in the case, ruled that there was no question for the jury; that upon this evidence the plaintiff was entitled to recover; ordered the jury to bring in a verdict for the plaintiff against all the defendants; and reported the case for the determination of this court. If upon this evidence there was no question of fact for the jury, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole amount of the note against all of the defendants, judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise, the verdict was to be set aside, and a new trial granted.
Exceptions overruled.
D. S. Richardson & L. Wallace, for the defendants.
T. H. Sweetser & F. A. Worcester, (G. A. A. Pevey with them,) for the plaintiff.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salisbury v. First National Bank of Cambridge City
...Bradford v. Martin, 3 Sand. [N.Y.] 647; Western Boatman's Benevolent Association v. Wolff, 45 Mo. 104; Lowell v. Gage, 38 Me. 35; Woods v. Woods, 127 Mass. 141; Spaulding v. Putnam, 128 Mass. 363; Austin Boyd, 24 Pick. [Mass.] 64; Hawks v. Phillips, 7 Gray [Mass.] 284; Semple v. Turner, 65 ......
-
Stebbins v. North Adams Trust Co.
...v. Rice, 16 Pick. 22;Fowler v. Bush, 21 Pick. 230;Taft v. Boyd, 13 Allen, 84;Parham Sewing Machine Co. v. Brock, 113 Mass. 194;Woods v. Woods, 127 Mass. 141, 149;Dodge v. Emerson, 131 Mass. 467;Cotton v. Atlas National Bank, 145 Mass. 43, 12 N. E. 850;O'Conner v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 145, 16 N......
-
Pearson v. O'Connell
... ... The defendant relied on the transaction just ... described as an extinguishment of the note by novation ... Hedge v. McQuaid, 11 Cush. 352; Woods v ... Woods, 127 Mass. 141; Stoughton Trust Co. v ... Pike, 282 Mass. 39, 184 N.E. 385; G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c ... 107, § 142(4). Jones v ... ...
-
Knight v. Kerfoot
...Boyd, 76 Tex. 133, 13 S. W. 332; Ryan v. Krusor, 76 Mo. App. 496;Slaymaker v. Gundacker's Executors, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 75-82;Woods v. Woods, 127 Mass. 141-149; 32 Cyc. p. 280 (c). Appellant's learned counsel have stated numerous propositions and cited many authorities in their voluminous ......