Quimby v. Morrill
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the ruling of Tenney, C. J. This was an action of assumpsit, in which the defendant is declared against as guarantor of a certain note described in the writ. The note was overdue when the defendant signed the writing on the back of it, in these words: — “January 12, 1857. For value received, I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note, waiving demand and notice.”
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the ruling of Tenney, C. J. This was an action of assumpsit, in which the defendant is declared against as guarantor of a certain note described in the writ. The note was overdue when the defendant signed the writing on the back of it, in these words: — “January 12, 1857. For value received, I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note, waiving demand and notice.” It was contended by the defendant, at the trial, that there was no sufficient consideration for the writing to render him liable to pay the note; and, on this point, testimony was offered by each party. The…
1Judgment of the CourtGoodenow, J.
From an examination of the evidence in the case, as reported, we are of opinion that the jury were justified in finding the consideration sufficient to render the defendant liable to pay the note. The motion to set aside the verdict must be overruled.
The burden of proof was clearly on the defendant. And though a witness cannot, generally, testify as to his intention in signing a written contract, and the defendant would not have been allowed to do so, against the objection of the plaintiff, it is not for the defendant in this case to complain.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hayes v. HoodNew York Supreme Court · 1890