Crompton v. Spencer

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Crompton v. Spencer

38 A. 1002, 20 R.I. 330, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 126

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 18, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 38 A. 1002 (Crompton v. Spencer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crompton v. Spencer, 38 A. 1002, 20 R.I. 330, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 126 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Matteson, C. J.

The defendant’s claim is based on the assumption that the two accommodation endorsers were joint makers of the note in suit. The note itself shows, however, that they were not joint makers but successive endorsers, the note being payable to the order of the defendant and endorsed by him before being endorsed by the plaintiff. In this respect it differs from Carpenter v. McLaughlin, 12 R. I. 270. In the absence of any agreement affecting the liability of endorsers, their liability is determined by the order in which their names appear on the note. We find no error in the ruling of the court directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

The defendant makes the point that the judgment on the note in the suit brought by the bank operated as a merger of the note, is conclusive on the parties to it, and excludes a defence growing out of the relations of first and second endorser existing between them prior to the recovery of the judgment. The only case cited in support of the point is Marshall v. Aiken, 25 Vt. 328. That case, however, treats of the effect of a merger on the rights of a surety as against a creditor. The court held that, as against a creditor, judgment upon the note operated as a merger of the note at law, *331 though, it might not be so at equity, and became so far conclusive on the parties as to exclude a defence growing out of the relation of principal and surety existing between the parties in the judgment prior to its recovery. The court, on page 335 of its opinion, says: “ We do not suppose that the j udgment in any way affects the relation between the principal and surety. That stands, as before, between themselves.” We do not think that the merger of the note in the judgment in favor of the bank affected the relation between the plaintiff and defendant as successive endorsers of the note.

Dexter B. Potter, for plaintiff. Samuel W. K. Allen, for defendant.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.

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

Matteson, C. J.

The defendant’s claim is based on the assumption that the two accommodation endorsers were joint makers of the note in suit. The note itself shows, however, that they were not joint makers but successive endorsers, the note being payable to the order of the defendant and endorsed by him before being endorsed by the plaintiff. In this respect it differs from Carpenter v. McLaughlin, 12 R. I. 270. In the absence of any agreement affecting the liability of endorsers, their liability is determined by the order in which their names appear on the note. We find no error in the ruling of the court directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

The defendant makes the point that the judgment on the note in the suit brought by the bank operated as a merger of the note, is conclusive on the parties to it, and excludes a defence growing out of the relations of first and second endorser existing between them prior to the recovery of the judgment. The only case cited in support of the point is Marshall v. Aiken, 25 Vt. 328. That case, however, treats of the effect of a merger on the rights of a surety as against a creditor. The court held that, as against a creditor, judgment upon the note operated as a merger of the note at law, *331 though, it might not be so at equity, and became so far conclusive on the parties as to exclude a defence growing out of the relation of principal and surety existing between the parties in the judgment prior to its recovery. The court, on page 335 of its opinion, says: “ We do not suppose that the j udgment in any way affects the relation between the principal and surety. That stands, as before, between themselves.” We do not think that the merger of the note in the judgment in favor of the bank affected the relation between the plaintiff and defendant as successive endorsers of the note.

Dexter B. Potter, for plaintiff. Samuel W. K. Allen, for defendant.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A. 1002, 20 R.I. 330, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crompton-v-spencer-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack