Westbrook Trust Co. v. Timberlake
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion for new trial. An action by plaintiff to recover from tbe administrators of the estate of Fred E. Richards upon a note of $20,000 dated December 18, 1916, on sixty days, signed by Ludwell L. Howison, as the principal promissor, and signed by Fred E. Richards, as an accommodation promissor.
Read the full summary
On motion for new trial. An action by plaintiff to recover from tbe administrators of the estate of Fred E. Richards upon a note of $20,000 dated December 18, 1916, on sixty days, signed by Ludwell L. Howison, as the principal promissor, and signed by Fred E. Richards, as an accommodation promissor. On February 16,1917 the plaintiff received from Ludwell L. Howison, the principal maker of the note in suit a new sixty-day note for the same sum, signed by him, but not signed by the accommodation maker, Fred E. Richards, which was entered upon plaintiff’s discount register. The note in suit was…
1Opinion of the CourtDunn, J.
Even a cursory reading of the record will show that Fred E. Richards, on December 18, 1916, signed a promissory note for twenty thousand dollars on sixty days with one Howison to aid the latter in procuring a loan from the Westbrook Trust Company, and that the bank as payee discounted the note with a full knowledge of the purpose of Richards’ signature. Mr. Richards lent his credit as an accommodation and the bank lent money. As between himself and Howison, Richards’ engagement was nothing else but one which he might have rescinded at any time before the negotiation of the note. But when that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Guild v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clifford v. West Hartford Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
- Maine National Bank v. FontaineSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983