Case ID: haw_1/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chief Justice Lee", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JEREMIAH MARTIN vs. ISAAC MONTGOMERY.
    Plaintiff recovered the amount of three promissory notes, endorsed to him by the defendant without recourse, on the ground that at the time of the endorsement the defendant represented the maker as being solvent, well knowing that he was in fact insolvent.
    This was an action on the case to recover the amount of three promissory notes, endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff in October last, in payment of a vessel sold by the plaintiff to the defendant.
    It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff in October last sold a schooner to the defendant, paid him for the same, by giving him three promissory notes for $500 each, drawn by Francis Funk payable to defendant. Montgomery endorsed the notes over to Martin without recourse, but at the same time represented Funk as a solvent man, when he well knew that he was not worth a farthing. The ground of the action was fraud and deceit in the false representations as to Funk’s responsibility. The defence was that the notes were endorsed “without resourse” and that the plaintiff could not look to the defendant for the payment of the same.
   Chief Justice Lee

charged the jury that fraud vitiated every contract, and that if they found the defendant had deceived the plaintiff by false representations of Funk’s solvency, when he knew him to be insolvent, arid therefore induced the plaintiff to take the notes without recourse, it was a fraudulent transaction, and rendered the endorsement a nullity. That to entitle the plaintiff to recover they must be satisfied of Funk’s insolvency at the time the notes were endorsed, and that Montgomery represented him as good, knowing him to be worth nothing. If these facts were well established, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Mr. De Fiennes and Mr. Hawes for plaintiff.

Mr Jasper for the defendant.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $2207 50.