Phœnix Cotton Manufacturing Co. v. Fuller
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon the following bill of exchange in favor of the plaintiffs’ agent: “ $2658.81. Clinton April 1, 1857. Six months after date, pay to the order of A. G. Snell, agt., twenty-six hundred fifty eight dollars value received, and charge the same to account of your ob’t servant, A. L. Fuller. To Messrs. E. & J. Holmes, Boston.” The defendant wrote his name upon the back of this bill, and it was accepted by the drawees.
Read the full summary
Contract upon the following bill of exchange in favor of the plaintiffs’ agent: “ $2658.81. Clinton April 1, 1857. Six months after date, pay to the order of A. G. Snell, agt., twenty-six hundred fifty eight dollars value received, and charge the same to account of your ob’t servant, A. L. Fuller. To Messrs. E. & J. Holmes, Boston.” The defendant wrote his name upon the back of this bill, and it was accepted by the drawees. At the trial in this court, before Dewey, J., it was agreed that the drawer and acceptors of the bill failed and went into insolvency and obtained their discharge. The…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
The parties in this action evidently intended tc *442make some kind of contract with each other; but either through carelessness or ignorance, they have made it very difficult to ascertain what contract was intended. A. L. Fuller made a draft in favor of the plaintiffs, upon E. '& J. Holmes, and the defendant, not being a party to it, wrote his name on the back as if he were indorser. But as he was not payee or indorsee, he could not be an indorser. If it had been a note, it is held in this commonwealth that such an irregular signature would make him an original promisor. But as this is a bill of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- James Lynch v. ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1819