Adams v. Blethen, 66 Me. 19

Adams v. Blethen

66 Me. 19 | Me. | 1877

Peters, 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 delivered the note. Every indorser of a bill or note impliedly says the same thing by his indorsement. The defendant did sell and deliver the note, and by making that declaration over his name on the back of it, he also agreed to pay the note to the plaintiff according to its tenor, upon seasonable notice, if the maker did not pay it. His contract is in part expressed and in part implied. Any indorser of a note may be properly styled a seller of the note by him indorsed.

The counsel for the defendant contends that, inasmuch as a complete contract of mere sale is set out in express terms, no more than a sale can be implied. But implied undertakings are annexed to many written contracts, and especially to those declared in short and imperfect terms. The warranty of title to a thing sold is rarely expressed, but usually implied, in a written contract of sale. Many illustrations of the principle could be given.

There is evidently some error in the report or the testimony, about the date of the demand and notice claimed to be proved by the plaintiff, which can be corrected upon a new hearing.

The action to stand for trial.

Appleton, G. -J., Walton, Dioicerson, Barrows and Yirgin, JJ., concurred.