Bean v. Arnold

16 Me. 251
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 15, 1839
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 Me. 251 (Bean v. Arnold) 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
Bean v. Arnold, 16 Me. 251 (Me. 1839).

Opinion

[252]*252The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Weston C. J.

The effect of the indorsement by the defendant on the note, adduced by the plaintiff, was a question of law, for the decision of the Court. The word, holden, must be understood to mean the assumption of a liability, without the condition of demand and notice, which is necessary to charge a common in-dorser. No other sensible construction can be given to the term, which must have been intended to have some meaning. The defendant now resists payment, insisting that he is not holden. By the indorsement however, he undertook to. be holden, without imposing any conditions. He cannot be permitted therefore to interpose as a defence, the want of demand and notice.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Furber v. Caverly
42 N.H. 74 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Knight v. Knight
16 N.H. 107 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1844)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Me. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bean-v-arnold-me-1839.