President of Fitchburg Bank v. Greenwood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note payable to the order of Greenwood & Nichols, the defendants, in six months from date, and indorsed by them. The answer admitted the indorsement, but alleged that it was limited and qualified by the words “ without recourse.” At the trial in the superior court, the note was produced, and bore upon its back, in three successive lines, the following indorsements : “ Greenwood & Nichols — without,recourse — Asa Perley 2d.”
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note payable to the order of Greenwood & Nichols, the defendants, in six months from date, and indorsed by them. The answer admitted the indorsement, but alleged that it was limited and qualified by the words “ without recourse.” At the trial in the superior court, the note was produced, and bore upon its back, in three successive lines, the following indorsements : “ Greenwood & Nichols — without,recourse — Asa Perley 2d.” The defendants offered paroi evidence to show that the words “ withput recourse ” were written by them when they indorsed the note; but stated,…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
The evidence which was rejected by the court was clearly competent. It had no tendency to vary or control the written contract, 01 to change the legal effect of the indorsement. It only proved what the contract really was, at the time it was entered into by the defendants. The evidence offered was similar to that often introduced in analogous cases, to show that a party put his name on the back of the note at its inception and before its indorsement by the payee, and so is chargeable as a joint and several promisor in like manner as if he had signed his name at the bottom of the note.
There is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Corbett v. FetzerNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Leahmer v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917