« PředchozíPokračovat »
V. Cruikshank. 92 U. S. 542.
3 How. (U. S.) 556.
6 Wall. 385..
128 U. S. 673...
Van Duyne v. Vreeland.
1 Beas. 142.
132 U. S. 220.
3 Dick. Ch. Rep. 332.
Vreeland v. Vetterlein....
4 Vroom 247. 249.
W. T. Adams Machine Co. v. Inter-
state Building Association.. 119 Ala. 97.
Weeks y. Freeholders.....
39 Vroom 622.
716 Weinberger y. North Jersey Street Railway Co.
44 Vroom 694.
630 Wells v. Savannah.
181 U. S. 531.
75 Wert v. Strouse.
9 Vroom 184.
242 West Jersey Railroad Co. y. Cam
den, &c.. Railroad Co.......... 7 Dick. Ch. Rep. 31. ..... 585 West Jersey Traction Co. v. Board of Public Works of Camden.... 27 Vroom 431.
144 Weston v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
45 Vroom 484.
525 White v. Burnley
20 How. 235.
406 Wild v. Paterson.
18 Vroom 406.
593 Wiley v. West Jersey Railroad Co., 15 V room 247.
320, 480 Williams v. Davis....
1 Penn. 239.
177 Williamson v. Wright....
2 Penn. 539..
177 Willoughby v. Erie Railroad Co... 48 Vroom 149.
682 v. Borden. 39. Vroom 627.
677 Wilson v. Edwards.
32 Pa. Sup. Ct. 295.
100 Winfield v. Bowen.
20 Dick. Ch. Rep. 636. 188 Wisheart v. Legro.
33 N. H. 177.
171 Wolcott v. New York and Long Branch Railroad Co...... 39 Vroom 421.
692 Wolfarth v. Sternberg..
41 Vroom 198.
473 Woodruff et al. v. Rochester and P. R. R. Co...
108 N. Y. 39.
636 Woodward v. Emmons.
32 Vroom 285.
727 v. Goutstone.
L. R., 11 App. Cas. 469. 601 Wooster v. Crane & Co..
3 Buch. 22..
642 Wright v. Carter
3 Dutcher 76.
.208, 581 v. Carter
J Vroom 207.
.208, 581 v. Hart... 182 N. Y. 330.
101 v. Remington. 12 Vroom 48.
2 v. Remington. 14 Vroom 451.
3 1. Roseberry..
121 U. S. 488.
z. Zolpher v. Camden and Sub. Ry. Co.
40 V room 417..
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
JUNE TERM, 1909.
PAUI. GERLI v. NATIONAL MILL SUPPLY COMPANY.
Submitted March 9, 1909-Decided June 14, 1909.
The contract embodied in a promissory note, by which an accommoda
tion maker obligates himself to pay a fixed amount of money to the holder, at a specified time, cannot be controlled by oral evidence that, at the time of the delivery of the note by the maker to the holder, it was understood between them that the note was to be paid by a third person for whose accommodation it was drawn, and not by the maker.
On error to Passaic Circuit Court.
Before GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices SWJYZE and PARKER.
For the plaintiff in error, Wayne Dumont.
For the defendant in error, Rayton E. Horton.
Gerli v. National Mill Supply Co.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE. This suit is brought to recover the amount due upon a promissory note for $1,045 made by the defendant to its own order, and endorsed by it, and also by the Acme Throwing Company. The case made by the plaintiff at the trial was as follows: The defendant retained possession of the note after its endorsement by the Acme Throwing Company, and sent it by one Rothchild, its secretary, to the mill of the plaintiff, where it was delivered by Rothchild to the plaintiff's cashier, who at the same time gave to Rothchild plaintiff's check for $1,000 in exchange for the note. The defendant deposited this check to its credit in bank, and in due course received the money on it. The note was presented for payment at maturity, and payment thereon was refused. Having proved these facts the plaintiff rested.
The defendant then offered to prove, as a bar to the plaintiff's right to recover, that the note was accommodation paper made by it for the benefit of the Acme Throwing Company; that the Throwing company got the benefit of the cash paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the note, and that the note was given to the plaintiff upon the understanding between the Throwing company, the defendant and the plaintiff, that it was to be paid to the plaintiff by the Throwing company or its president. All testimony offered by the defendant to prove these facts was excluded by the trial court, and this judicial action is now assigned for error.
The question which this assignment presents is whether the contract embodied in a promissory note, by which an accommodation maker obligates himself to pay a fixed amount of money to the holder at a specified date, can be controlled by oral evidence that at the time of the delivery of the note by the maker to the holder it was understood between them that the note was to be paid by a third person for whose accommodation it was drawn, and not by the maker. This question is not an open one in this state. “In the case of Wright v. Remington, 12 Vroom, 48, the defendant signed two notes as surety. The defence set up was that she signed the notes at