Blake v. Coleman

Contract : Promissory note with condition endorsed, without signature. 1. An instrument sued upon as a promissory note, when produced in evidence, had endorsed thereon a condition that the payee or bearer was “ not to expect payment” until certain property of the maker was “sold for a fair price.” S'eld, that if so endorsed at the time of its delivery (which may be proved by parol), it was a mere conditional agreement. 2. It seems that the legal effect of the indorsement is, that the maker was to sell such property; and parol evidence would be incompetent to show that it was agreed that the payee was to sell it.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Great Lake County. Complaint on a promissory note; answer, a general denial. On the trial, the instrument was put in evidence, and was on its face a promissory note in the usual form, signed by defendant and running to plaintiff, but endorsed thereon were the following words, without' date or signature: “ The conditions of the within note are as follows: L. S. Blake or bearer is not to ask or expect payment of said note until bis, Coleman’s, old mill is sold for a fair price.” Tbis was admitted in evidence against defendant’s obj ection. D efendant testified that the endorsement was made before the note was signed; that the note was given for a fanning mill purchased of plaintiff; and that he (defendant) had a fanning mill on hand at the time he gave it. Defendant offered to show by parol that the agreement was that plaintiff should dispose of the old mill, and that it had not been disposed of, but was still in defendant’s possession, and plaintiff had never demanded it nor offered -to dispose of it; but this evidence was rejected, as tending to vary the terms of a written instrument. Judgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendant appealed. as to the character of the instrument, cited Chitty on Bills (10th ed.), 140-41; Billie, v. Van Wie, 6 Wis., 209; Elmore v. Hoffman, id., 68; 14 Mass., 322; 4 id., 245; 21 Pick., 483; 23 N. Y., 78. As to the admissibility of the parol evidence, he cited 19 Johns., 313; Blossom v. Griffin, 3 Kern., 575; Bolter v. Hopkins, 25 Wend., 417; C. & H.’s Notes, 1471-3; Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 16 Wis., 120. contended that an endorsement without signature is not a written agreement (Cole v. Clarke, 3 Wis., 323; 1 Campb., 442; 16 Barb., 548; 20 E. L. & Eq., 348, 351); and that the oral evidence was inadmissible. Cooper v. Tappan, 4 Wis., 362; Heath v. Van Colt, 9 id., 516; Racine Co. Bank v. Keep, 13 id., 209; Sigerson v. Cushing, 14 id., 527; Gregory v. Hart, 7 id., 532.