Case ID: mass_113/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles W. Wilson vs. Thomas R. Bowden.
    The declarations of an officer of a bank in which a note has been lodged for collection, made before its maturity, are not admissible to affect the title of the holder.
    Declarations as to the ownership of a note, made to the indorser by one employed to sell it, are not admissible to affect the title of the purchaser.
    Contract, to recover of the defendant, as indorser, the amount of a promissory note signed by one Alexander B. Campbell, and made payable to the order of the defendant.
    At the" trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., there was evidence that Campbell about the time of its date put the note into the hands of one Abbott to sell for him, and that Abbott at some time sold it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he purchased the note of Abbott about the time of its date, and that he, about two weeks before its maturity, placed it for collection in the Central National Bank of Lynn. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not a bond fide holder of the note; and offered to show that he called at the Central National Bank two. days before its maturity, and that the officers of the bank said that no such note was there. He also offered to show what Abbott, in answer to his inquiries, had said at different times be» fore the maturity of the note as to where the note then was,, and as to the ownership of it.
    The court excluded the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      A. F. L. Norris, for the defendant.
    
      T. B. Newhall § R. E. Harmon, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

We see nothing in the case to justify the claim that Abbott was an agent for the plaintiff, or had authority to bind him by any declarations or admissions.

If the plaintiff lodged the note at the bank for collection before its maturity, it could hardly be material whether it was two weeks or two days before. The bank officers were his agents to collect it, but for no other purpose. No declarations made by them before its maturity would affect his rights, unless expressly authorized by him. Exceptions overruled.