Talcott v. Cogswell
Connecticut Superior Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit by the second en* d°rsor of a promissory note against the first endorser, for one moiety of the amount of the note, paid by the . plaintiff, on the failure of the maker. The action was commenced in December, 1804. The case, as it appeared from the evidence, was as : In the latter part of the year 1800, Samuel Tudor held William Howe's note, endorsed by the defendant, f°r 500 dollars.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit by the second en* d°rsor of a promissory note against the first endorser, for one moiety of the amount of the note, paid by the . plaintiff, on the failure of the maker. The action was commenced in December, 1804. The case, as it appeared from the evidence, was as : In the latter part of the year 1800, Samuel Tudor held William Howe's note, endorsed by the defendant, f°r 500 dollars. When that note became payable, Howe caj]ed on Tudor, and offered him, in part payment, another note, with the same names, for 400 dollars, Tudor objected to receiving it, without…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
were of opinion, that the circumstances of the case furnished sufficient evidence that the endorsement was joint; and that each having paid what, in that case, each would be compellable to pay, the verdict ought to be for the defendant. They, therefore, returned the jury to a second, and afterwards to a third consideration; but the jury adhered to their verdict.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jaronko v. CzerwinskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Kirschner v. ConklinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Smith v. MorrillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1866
- Coolidge v. WigginSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1873
- Church v. BarlowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1830