Clark v. Whiting
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit against the defendant as endorser of .a promissory note; brought to the Superior Court in New Iiaven County, and tried to the court, upon the general issue, before Hovey, J. The note was for $1,000, dated May 10th, 1870, payable to the order of Hervey B. Leete in five years after date with interest, and was endorsed in blank by the payee.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as endorser of .a promissory note; brought to the Superior Court in New Iiaven County, and tried to the court, upon the general issue, before Hovey, J. The note was for $1,000, dated May 10th, 1870, payable to the order of Hervey B. Leete in five years after date with interest, and was endorsed in blank by the payee. It appeared, that the payee had delivered the note thus endorsed to the defendant, and that the defendant had delivered it to one Bussell, and Bussell to the plaintiff, all before the maturity of the note, and that the note was dishonored by the…
1Opinion of the CourtPark, C. J.
The note in question was endorsed in blank by Leete, the payee, and delivered to the defendant in the usual course of a commercial transaction. Under the indorsement of Leete upon the back of the note, the following words appear, over, and in immediate connection with, the signature of the defendant: — “Received one year’s interest *152on the within, May 10th, 1871. Gr. K. Whiting.” Does the note purport to have been indorsed by Whiting in the legal sense of that term? We think not. If the defendant had written the words “without recourse,” over and in immediate connection with his signature…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pickering v. CordingIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Thomassen and Mueller v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1939