Spofford v. Norton

An action against the maker of a promissory note can he maintained in the name of a person who has no beneficial interest in the note, hut sues at the request of the owner; and evidence is incompetent in defence of the action which would he incompetent to impeach the title of the owner.

Contract on a promissory note for 1100, dated August 11, 1877, signed by the defendant, payable to the order of Jesse Wadleigh, and by him indorsed. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who, after verdict for the plaintiff, reported the case for the consideration of this court in substance as follows: There was evidence on the part of the defendant that he gave the note in suit in payment of a horse purchased by him in June 1877, of Wadleigh, who was foreman of the stable of S. A. Tuttle, the owner of the horse; that the horse was delivered to and disposed of by the defendant; that subsequently, on August 11, 1877, the note was made and delivered to Wadleigh; that, before the maturity of the note, it was purchased by Marshall A. Lewis, without notice of the facts attending the making and consideratian thereof, who held it until near its maturity, when he put it in a bank for collection; that the note, not being paid at maturity, was protested for non-payment, and Lewis put it into the hands of an attorney for collection, with no directions as to the time of suit, but with authority to bring suit upon the note; that subsequently Lewis asked permission of the plaintiff to bring an action on the note in the plaintiff’s name, and the plaintiff authorized such an action; and that thereupon this action was brought, the plaintiff not having then or since any property in the note, or any relation thereto, except as above stated. The defendant also offered to prove that he purchased the horse, some weeks prior to the giving of the note in suit, of Wadleigh, acting as the agent of Tuttle, the owner of the horse; that Wadleigh took the note in his own name on account of the former transaction of the purchase of the horse; that Wadleigh demanded that the note should be made payable to him because Tuttle had gone into bankruptcy; that Wadleigh’s motive in so taking the note was to prevent Tuttle’s assignee from getting possession of the horse; and that, prior to the making of the note, Tuttle’s wife demanded payment for the horse, it being then in the possession of the defendant under the sale by Wadleigh to him. There was no offer to show that Tuttle knew of Wadleigh’s demand to have the note made payable to him. The judge rejected the above offer of evidence, against the defendant’s objection; and directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note. If the evidence offered was competent, or if, upon the facts reported, the defendant had a defence to the action, a new trial was to be ordered; otherwise, judgment was to be entered on the verdict.