Gamage v. Hutchins
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit against Hutchins-as guarantor of a note of which a copy follows.— “ Portland, June 2, 1836. Value received I promise to pay Moses Hutchins, Jr. or order one hundred and fifteen dollars on demand and interest. Wm. Rice.” . On the back of the note were these words, subscribed by Hutchins, without date. “ For value received I guarantee the payment of the within note to W. Gamage.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against Hutchins-as guarantor of a note of which a copy follows.— “ Portland, June 2, 1836. Value received I promise to pay Moses Hutchins, Jr. or order one hundred and fifteen dollars on demand and interest. Wm. Rice.” . On the back of the note were these words, subscribed by Hutchins, without date. “ For value received I guarantee the payment of the within note to W. Gamage. “ Moses Hutchins, Jr.” The action was commenced Dec. 30, 1841. The action was opened for trial, when the defendant contended, that the plaintiff was not entitled to prevail without first showing a seasonable…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Whitman C. J.
The note in suit was made by one Rice, and indorsed to the plaintiff, with a guaranty, that the note should be paid to the plaintiff The note was payable on demand. At the time of the indorsement and guaranty Rice was solvent; and so continued for about two years thereafter, during which time it does not appear that the plaintiff made any effort to collect the note. Such negligence, should ordinarily exonerate the guarantor from liability. Oxford Bank v. Haynes, 8 Pick. 423; Talbot v. Gay 18 ib. 534; Story on Bills of Exc. 344 and note.
But…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bedford v. KelleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- English v. LandonIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- MacNear v. MalowMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Price County Bank v. McKenzieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895