Adams v. Blethen
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON REPORT. Assumpsit against an indorser of a note of the following tenor : “Linneus, May 30, 1873. I promise to pay James H. Blethen or order $137.50, at 10 per cent, interest, on demand. (Signed,) Ebenezer Tozier.” On the note was this indorsement: “I this day sold and delivered to Catharine M. Adams the with not. (Signed,) James H. Blethen.”
Read the full summary
ON REPORT. Assumpsit against an indorser of a note of the following tenor : “Linneus, May 30, 1873. I promise to pay James H. Blethen or order $137.50, at 10 per cent, interest, on demand. (Signed,) Ebenezer Tozier.” On the note was this indorsement: “I this day sold and delivered to Catharine M. Adams the with not. (Signed,) James H. Blethen.” The plaintiff testified in her direct examination, in substance, that the maker refused to pay the note, and that immediately thereafter, and not more than four or five days from her first possession of it, she notified the defendant of the demand and…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The defendant, payee of a negotiable note, signed his name on the back of it under these words: “I this day sold and delivered to Catharine M. Adams (plaintiff) the with not.” *21We tbink tliat the defendant thereby assumed all the liabilities of an ordinary indorsement of the note. No word in the writing indorsed upon the note negatives or qualifies such an idea. The liabilities implied by indorsing a note can be qualified or restricted only by express terms. Here the only restriction is, that the indorsement is made special to Catharine M. Adams. The defendant declares that he sold and…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Merrill v. HurleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Markey v. CoreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Dunham v. PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Leahy v. HaworthCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Maine Trust & Banking Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.