Howe Mach. Co. v. Hadden
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana
Action by the Howe Machine Company against Hadden, Good, and Eisher on four notes of $500 each, executed by Hadden to Good. The latter assigned the notes by in-dorsement to Fisher, who afterwards assigned them by indorsement to Good, who assigned them by indorsement to plaintiff. The third note was past due before any of the indorsements were made on it.
Read the full summary
Action by the Howe Machine Company against Hadden, Good, and Eisher on four notes of $500 each, executed by Hadden to Good. The latter assigned the notes by in-dorsement to Fisher, who afterwards assigned them by indorsement to Good, who assigned them by indorsement to plaintiff. The third note was past due before any of the indorsements were made on it. In each paragraph of the petition it is alleged “said Good indorsed the same (note) to the defendant Fisher, who in course of trade indorsed the same to said Good, who in like manner indorsed the same to the plaintiff.” Copies of the notes…
1Opinion of the Court
GRESHAM, District Judge.
It is clear that Good could not maintain an action against Fisher on the latter’s indorsements. The law presumes from Good’s possession of the notes, after their re-indorsement to him by Fisher, that they were paid by Good as the first indorser. And further, if Good could sue Fisher on the latter’s indorsement, Fisher could turn round and sue Good on his prior indorsement. To prevent this" circuity or multiplicity of actions, the law in such cases, allows the liability of the first indorser to extinguish the liability of the second. Byles, Bills, 154; Bishop v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mauldin v. Branch Bank at MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Palmer v. WhitneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1863