Shaw v. Grifith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit by the endorsee of a promissory note, payable on demand, against the endorser. Upon a trial had, upon the general issue, before Thatcher, J., at the last September term in this county, it was in evidence that the note, which was dated Oct. 14th, 1805, and made by one Charles Shaw, payable to the defendant or his order on demand, was endorsed in blank, and delivered over by the promisee to one B. Kimball, who, in January, 1806, presented it to the maker for payment,…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the endorsee of a promissory note, payable on demand, against the endorser. Upon a trial had, upon the general issue, before Thatcher, J., at the last September term in this county, it was in evidence that the note, which was dated Oct. 14th, 1805, and made by one Charles Shaw, payable to the defendant or his order on demand, was endorsed in blank, and delivered over by the promisee to one B. Kimball, who, in January, 1806, presented it to the maker for payment, who was insolvent, but in about a month afterwards paid a part of the sum due upon it to Kimball, who afterwards…
1Per curiam
The exceptions in this case are made against principles long settled by a variety of decisions. The general principle, that an endorser of a promissory note engages conditionally only, and becomes responsible according to the usages among merchants in the negotiation of bills of exchange and promissory notes, and not otherwise, is decisive of this case. Any credit by the endorsee and holder, to the drawer, acceptor, prior endorser or promisor, is a consent to hold the demand upon their responsibility ; and the *415holder has no remedy afterwards but against them, where the circumstances of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hawkins v. ThompsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois · 1840
- Wells v. GantTennessee Supreme Court · 1833