Stone v. White
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action of contract on two promissory notes payable on demand, signed by Rodolphus White and Philos Stratton, partners, as makers, and “ Newell" Snow, surety.” The plaintiff originally declared against all the defendants as makers of the notes, which were expressed to be “ for value received,” and copies of which were annexed.
Read the full summary
Action of contract on two promissory notes payable on demand, signed by Rodolphus White and Philos Stratton, partners, as makers, and “ Newell" Snow, surety.” The plaintiff originally declared against all the defendants as makers of the notes, which were expressed to be “ for value received,” and copies of which were annexed. Snow answered that he signed them as surety only, long after they were made and delivered, and without consideration ; and the other defendants relied on such signing by Snow as a material alteration. The plaintiff then, by leave of court, filed four additional counts,…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, J.
It is very clear that the plaintiff could not recover against the defendant Snow, upon the counts in this writ, charging him as an original party to the note set out in the declaration. Upon the evidence, it appeared that he was not a party to the note when it was made, and did not partake in the consideration for which it was given. He affixed his name to it several months after its date, and while it was in the hands of the payee. His contract was collateral to that of the signers of the note, and was in its nature a guaranty of their promise. It was essential therefore, in order to charge…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lansing v. M'KillipNew York Supreme Court · 1805
3Cited by1 opinion
- Holthouse v. State ex rel. Ludlow Falls Quarry Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1912