7 Mo. 440 | Mo. | 1842
Opinion of the Court, delivered by
David Thomas instituted ,an action of assumpsit against P. & J. Powell, 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, for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, from due until paid.
Thomas L. Fontaine.
We have taken the liberty to transcribe this passage'from opinion delivered in the above cause, as embodying our own v;ews anci as containing the most reasonable interpre-_ ° r tation of the intent of the party making an endorsement si-m¡lar to that in the cause now under consideration. Many other cases might be cited from the same reports, supporting . D , _ _ ‘ this view or the subject, See 13 John. 175.
^ie case Baker anc^ Briggs, ® Pickering, is an authority to show that where the contrary does not appear, it will be presumed that the execution of the note, and the making the endorsement, were cotemporaneous acts. The party making the endorsement is regarded as being privy to the coa-sideration; and it will be presumed that it was taken on the faith of the endorsement, and he will not be heard in objecting the want of consideration for his endorsement. This we hold is the light in which a blank endorsement, made by a party who is not the payee of a note, is to be regarded, if nothing to the contrary appears. The real contract of the parties may be shown ; but in the absence of all proof, the foregoing are the principles by. which we think courts should be governed in determining the liability of a party who, when not a payee or endorsee, will make a blank endorsement on a promissory note. Carver v. Weaver, 5 Massachusetts Rep. 546.
There being another cause before the court involving the same question on a note negotiable, we are of opinion that
Judgment affirmed.