Lime Rock Bank v. Mallett
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Shepley, C. J., presiding. Assumpsit upon a note, dated Jan’y 28, 1845, given to the plaintiffs and signed by H. McIntosh, J. Spofford and the defendant, to the plaintiffs, payable at 60 days. Received, Renewed. The note was read to the jury.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Shepley, C. J., presiding. Assumpsit upon a note, dated Jan’y 28, 1845, given to the plaintiffs and signed by H. McIntosh, J. Spofford and the defendant, to the plaintiffs, payable at 60 days. Received, Renewed. The note was read to the jury. It had upon it indorsements as follows: — “ May 28, Sept. 28, Nov. 28, 1846, Jan’y 28, March 28, May 28, July 28, “ 1847, Sept, received ten dollars and thirty-seven cents, interest till Aug. 28 last, by J. L. Mallett.” The defence was, that though it did not appear upon the note, yet the defendant was but a surety to…
1Opinion of the CourtRice, J.
This is an action on a joint and several promissory note, dated January 28, 1845, payable to the President, Directors and Company of the Lime Rock Bank or their order, and signed Henry McIntosh, John L. Mallett and John Spofford. The names of all the makers appear as principals on the face of the note.
It is contended by the defendant, that, notwithstanding his name thus appears on the note as a principal, still, as matter of fact, he was only surety to McIntosh, and that this fact was well known to the bank at the time the note was made. He further insists that, in consideration of the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Abel v. AlexanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Stillwell v. AaronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- State v. NiehausSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Wakefield Bank v. TruesdellNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Kremke v. RadamakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.