Crompton v. Spencer
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Assumpsit by a subsequent endorser of a promissory note against a prior endorser, brought after judgment thereon obtained by the payee and paid by the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtMatteson, C. J.
The defendant’s claim is based on the assumption that the two accommodation endorsers were joint makers of the note in suit. The note itself shows, however, that they were not joint makers but successive endorsers, the note being payable to the order of the defendant and endorsed by him before being endorsed by the plaintiff. In this respect it differs from Carpenter v. McLaughlin, 12 R. I. 270. In the absence of any agreement affecting the liability of endorsers, their liability is determined by the order in which their names appear on the note. We find no error in the ruling of the court…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hollander v. Smith & SmithNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- Georgia Public Service Commission v. TaylorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Columbus-Cincinnati Trucking Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- Illinois Central Railroad v. BuckleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1966
- Joseph Miller Co. v. Gateway City Transfer Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.