7 Mo. 492 | Mo. | 1842
Opinion of the Court, delivered by
(Peter & Joseph Powel v. Thomas.)
David Thomas instituted an action of assumpsit against P. & J. Powel on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
St. Louis, March' 1st, 1839.
Six months after date, I promise to pay to the order of David Thomas, eight hundred and seven dollars and sixty-one cents for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, from due until paid.
Thomas L. Fontaine.
On the back of the note, the names of P. & J. Powell were endorsed in blank, and they were charged in the declaration as the makers of the note. On the trial, the court below instructed the jury, that Thomas L. Fontaine was the party originally liable on the note, and that P. & J. Powell were his securities. There was a verdict and judgment for Thomas, the plaintiff below, from which P. & J. Powell have appealed to this court.
The question is whether P. & J. Powell are to be regarded as securities to the note ? This is a case of the first impression on this court, and it must be admitted, is not without its difficulties. Cases from the English and American books have been cited, which show that an endorsement like that in the present case, has been regarded by some courts as evidence of an undertaking of one character, and by other courts as evidence of another and different undertaking. All admit that the party making the endorsement, is bound in some way or in some event, but a contrariety of
We have taken the liberty to transcribe this passage from the opinion delivered in the above cause, as embodying our own vie vvs, and as containing the most reasonable . interpretation of the intent of the party making an endorsement similar to that in the cause now under consideration. Many
Opinion by
I believe that the Powells ought not to be regarded as makers of the note sued on.