Howe v. Klein
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions by Dependant. Tbe facts appear in tbe opinion. In Parsons on Bills and Notes, Vol. 2, page 539, that author saysr“ A contemporaneous memorandum on tbe note, or as we bave just seen, even on a separate paper, if made by agreement of all tbe parties before signing, will bind all parties, and all wbo bave, or are legally presumed to bave, notice thereof, and may be pleaded either by plaintiff or defendant.”
Read the full summary
On Exceptions by Dependant. Tbe facts appear in tbe opinion. In Parsons on Bills and Notes, Vol. 2, page 539, that author saysr“ A contemporaneous memorandum on tbe note, or as we bave just seen, even on a separate paper, if made by agreement of all tbe parties before signing, will bind all parties, and all wbo bave, or are legally presumed to bave, notice thereof, and may be pleaded either by plaintiff or defendant.” Bonney v. Morrill, 57 Maine, 373. Tbe case of Seywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228, would seem to be decisive of tbe present case. In that case, after tbe note was signed and…
1Opinion of the CourtWiswell, J.
These two cases were presented together. One is a suit upon two promissory notes, both dated April 15th, 1893, payable respectively in one and two years from their date. The writ is dated April 30th, 1895. The defendant claimed' at the trial that, as to the second note, the action was prematurely brought because of the following memorandum written upon a separate piece of paper, and signed by the payee of the notes.
“Dixmont, Maine, April 15, 1893.
This is to certify that I consent to receive payments on any of William Klein’s notes which I now hold, at any time when he wishes to make a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mitchell v. HarperSupreme Court of Florida · 1920
- Hygema v. MarkleySupreme Court of Florida · 1939
- Hygema v. MarkleySupreme Court of Florida · 1939
- Werckley v. New Orleans Homesite Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1920