Blanchard v. Wood
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a note. The parties agreed, that the defendant, the payee of the note, indorsed it before it fell due, in this manner, “ Phineas Wood holden for the within note.” The makers of the note resided in the county of Waldo, and at the time the note fell due, and for one year afterwards, were of sufficient ability to pay it.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a note. The parties agreed, that the defendant, the payee of the note, indorsed it before it fell due, in this manner, “ Phineas Wood holden for the within note.” The makers of the note resided in the county of Waldo, and at the time the note fell due, and for one year afterwards, were of sufficient ability to pay it. No demand of payment was made upon the makers until six months after the note had become payable, and no notice of non-payment was given to the defendant. A nonsuit or default was to be entered according to the opinion of the Court…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Whitman C. J.
— The case of Bean v. Arnold, 16 Maine R. 251, must be regarded as decisive of this case. The distinction relied upon in defence is not well founded. The language of the indorsement in this is more explicit than in that case, where the indorser merely added the word “ holden” to his signature. In this, his language is, “ holden for the within note.” In that case, however, the meaning was held to be identical with what is expressed in this. In both cases something more was intended than an agreement to be holden in case of demand and notice.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Airey v. PearsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866