Redlon v. Churchill
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report from superior court. Assumpsit on a promissory note against- the firm of Churchill and Melcher. The case is fully stated in the opinion. cited: Kellogg v. Curtis,. 69 Maine, 212; Farrell v. Lovett, 68 Maine, 326; Story on Partnership, § 133; Waldo Bank v. Lumbert, 16 Maine, 416 Holmes v. Porter, 39 Maine, 160; Etheridge v. Binney, 9 Pick.. 274; Wait v. Thayer, 118 Mass. 473 ; Hat.
Read the full summary
On report from superior court. Assumpsit on a promissory note against- the firm of Churchill and Melcher. The case is fully stated in the opinion. cited: Kellogg v. Curtis,. 69 Maine, 212; Farrell v. Lovett, 68 Maine, 326; Story on Partnership, § 133; Waldo Bank v. Lumbert, 16 Maine, 416 Holmes v. Porter, 39 Maine, 160; Etheridge v. Binney, 9 Pick.. 274; Wait v. Thayer, 118 Mass. 473 ; Hat. Bank v. Savery, 127 Mass. 75. The form of the note itself is notice sufficient to put a third party on his inquiry, as it clearly suggests that the note was given for an individual debt and not for…
1Opinion of the CourtApele ton, C. J.
This is an action of assumpsit against the ■defendants as indorsers of the following described note.
"$200.00. Portland September, 29, 1880.
Pour months after date I promise to pay to the order of myself two hundred dollars at any bank in Portland. Value received.
No. 2672. Due January 29. George L. Churchill.”
Indorsed on the back of the note is, " George L. Churchill.”
"Churchill and Melcher.”
*149The note not being paid at maturity was protested and the defendants were seasonably notified.
The defence set up was, that Churchill made the note and the indorsements thereon and obtained the money on the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Murray v. LardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Smith v. LivingstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Atlas National Bank v. SaveryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lincoln National Bank v. SchoenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894