Emerson v. Harmon
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Whitman C. J. presiding. Assumpsit against the defendants, as indorsers of a promissory note, made by Hanson &p Hah to Pelatiah Harm,on, one of the defendants, or bis order, dated Nov. 27, 1835, and payable in four months and grace. On the back thereof was indorsed, in the handwriting of Harmon, P. Harmon, Harmon &f Silsby, in blank. Harmon was defaulted, and the defence made by Silsby.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Whitman C. J. presiding. Assumpsit against the defendants, as indorsers of a promissory note, made by Hanson &p Hah to Pelatiah Harm,on, one of the defendants, or bis order, dated Nov. 27, 1835, and payable in four months and grace. On the back thereof was indorsed, in the handwriting of Harmon, P. Harmon, Harmon &f Silsby, in blank. Harmon was defaulted, and the defence made by Silsby. Due demand and notice were proved by a witness, of whom the counsel for Silsby proposed to inquire, what declarations were made by Silsby at the time the notice was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Weston C. J.
The note, although dated before the advertisement, announcing a partnership between the defendants, was indorsed after it was formed. It does not appear, that the broker knew for what purpose or for whom the money was raised, or that it was not wanted on account of the partnership, or to what uses it was applied. Besides, it is not in proof, that he was employed by the plaintiff to purchase the note. He was constituted the agent of Harmon, one of the defendants, to procure the note discounted, for which he received a commission.
The plaintiff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hogsett v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Lincoln National Bank v. SchoenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Plumer v. FrenchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851