Deering & Co. v. Creighton
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Benton county: R. S. Bean, judge. This was an action to recover on certain promissory notes made by divers persons, and payable to the order of the plaintiffs. The notes were made and executed in the usual form of negotiable paper.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton county: R. S. Bean, judge. This was an action to recover on certain promissory notes made by divers persons, and payable to the order of the plaintiffs. The notes were made and executed in the usual form of negotiable paper. Taking one as an example of the others, it is signed by Ruby E. A. Wood, Jesse Wood, I. N. Wood, as makers, and on the back of it an endorsement as follows: ‘ ‘For value received, we hereby waive protest, demand and notice of non-payment. “Creighton & Quivey.” The answer admits the indorsement, but alleges that they were so endorsed after the making of…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The principal question arises out of the decision on the demurrer to the matter set up in the reply as inconsistent with the facts alleged in the complaint, or, to raise the same question in another form, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to show that the defendants are original promisors or joint makers. Taking the note as it stands, what is its legal effect? Are the defendants joint makers, guarantors or indorsers ? The liability created by such an indorsement presents an important' and perplexing question, in which the conclusions of the courts are at variance. Such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. . CrossNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Barr v. MitchellOregon Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cranston v. West Coast Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Lumbermen's Nat. Bank v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Wade v. CreightonOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Montgomery v. PageOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Annand v. AustinOregon Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.