Shaw v. Knox

98 Mass. 214
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 98 Mass. 214 (Shaw v. Knox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shaw v. Knox, 98 Mass. 214 (Mass. 1867).

Opinion

Bigelow, C. J.

There was no joint liability on the part of the defendant with the subsequent indorsers. The indorsers on the draft were all liable to the holders of the draft for value on their several contracts of indorsement. There was no agreement between the parties, when the draft was made and indorsed, that they should hold any other relation towards each other than that which would result from their being successive indorsers on the draft for the accommodation of the drawer. If the last indorser paid the draft to the holder for value, he would succeed to the right of such holder, and could look to his prior indorser for payment of the amount paid by him. Guild v. Eager, 17 Mass. 615. Such payment was in fact made by the second indorsers, from whom the plaintiff derives his title to the draft. The relations of the parties to the draft can in no sense be regarded as creating a contract of joint guaranty and suretyship. The rights [216]*216and duties of the several parties to an accommodation note or bill of exchange are the same in all respects as upon notes given for value. The legal effect of the contract into which they respectively enter by becoming parties to negotiable paper is that which .appears on the face of the bill or note. It follows that, if an accommodation indorser is obliged to take up the draft in the hands of a holder for value, he can look to his prior indorser for payment. Church v. Barlow, 9 Pick. 547. Clapp v. Rice, 13 Gray, 403. Howe v. Merrill, 5 Cush. 80.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Lill v. Gleason
142 P. 287 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)
Berenson v. Conant
101 N.E. 60 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Moore v. Cushing
39 N.E. 177 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Mulcare v. Welch
35 N.E. 97 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Pfluger v. Wilshusen
17 N.Y.S. 516 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Gillespie v. Campbell
39 F. 724 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1889)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. J. C. R. Haynes & Co.
10 S.W. 398 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
Rhinehart v. Schall
16 A. 126 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1888)
Coolidge v. Wiggin
62 Me. 568 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1873)
Kirschner v. Conklin
40 Conn. 77 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mass. 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-knox-mass-1867.