Adams v. Blethen

66 Me. 19, 1877 Me. LEXIS 118
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 7, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 66 Me. 19 (Adams v. Blethen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Blethen, 66 Me. 19, 1877 Me. LEXIS 118 (Me. 1877).

Opinion

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.” [21]*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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fay v. Witte
186 N.E. 678 (New York Court of Appeals, 1933)
Baldwin-Heckes Co. v. Kammerlohr
242 N.W. 661 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1932)
Divelbiss v. Burns
138 So. 346 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1931)
Jones County Trust & Savings Bank v. Kurt
192 Iowa 965 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Copeland v. Burk
1916 OK 730 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Howard v. Kincaid
1915 OK 1109 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Behrens v. Kirkgard
143 S.W. 698 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Leahy v. Haworth
141 F. 850 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Dunham v. Peterson
36 L.R.A. 232 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Markey v. Corey
36 L.R.A. 117 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)
Merrill v. Hurley
62 N.W. 958 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)
Maine Trust & Banking Co. v. Butler
12 L.R.A. 370 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 Me. 19, 1877 Me. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-blethen-me-1877.