Norton v. Waite
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit against the defendant as drawer of a draft on Hall & Duren, and by them accepted, dated Calais, July 24, 1837, for $900, and payable to the order of Zimri B. Heywood, at the Suffolk Bank in seventy-five days from date, and by him indorsed.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as drawer of a draft on Hall & Duren, and by them accepted, dated Calais, July 24, 1837, for $900, and payable to the order of Zimri B. Heywood, at the Suffolk Bank in seventy-five days from date, and by him indorsed. From the report of Shepley J. before whom the cause was tried, it appeared that the draft was delivered by Heywood to one Heman Norton in part payment of his share of timber cut in township No. 4. On the part of the defendant, it was proved that the draft was an accommodation draft, drawn and indorsed for the accommodation of Hall & Duren, and had…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Shepley J.
It is contended, that Hernán Norton was not a competent witness for the plaintiff. The bill was drawn, accepted, indorsed, and delivered to him on a consideration, which has fathed. He parted with it before its maturity; and it does not appear, that he indorsed it. If his testimony should enable the plaintiff to recover, he would be liable to' refund *177the amount to the acceptors. Should he be regarded as liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff, if he should fail to recover, his interest would be a balanced one. A person, who sells a note or bill…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Williams v. MatthewsNew York Supreme Court · 1824
3Cited by1 opinion
- Atkinson v. BrooksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854