Case ID: ny-sup-ct_41/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, P. J.;", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH ROE, Respondent, v. HENRY HALLETT, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
    
      Note — one who signs his name on the book of a non-negotiable note is liable asa maleen' or gua/rantor, and not as an indorser.
    
    Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court affirming a justice’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
    ■ The action was upon a promissory note which was accidentally destroyed before maturity. According to the testimony on the part ■of the plaintiff it was made in the latter part of May, 1880, for thirty dollars, payable to L. A. Hallett, at the Rank of Canisteo, with use, ninety days from date. It was signed by the defendant Travis, on the face, and the defendant Hallett wrote his name upon the back, before its delivery. The note'was assigned to the plaintiff before suit. The only defense was. that the appellant was not charged as an indorser.
    The court at General Term said: “ The note being payable to L. A. Hallett, and not to his order or to bearer, was not negotiable. (Story on Pr. Notes, § 128.)
    
      “ It is well settled in this State that a person who signs his name on the back of a non-negotiable note, before delivery, does not, in .a commercial sense, become an indorser of it with the rights and liabilities of a simple indorser. But he can be held as a maker of the note or as a guarantor of its payment. {Griswold v. Slocum, 10 Barb., 402; Bicharás v. Warring, 39 id., 42; S. C. affirmed, 1 Keyes, 576; Paine v. Noelke, 53 How. Pr., 273; S. O. affirmed, 54 id., 333; Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y., 491; McMullen v. Rafferty,. 89 id., 456.)
    
      “ The complaint in this case properly charged the appellant as a maker, and as such-he showed no defense.”
    The judgment should be affirmed.
    P. J. Hallett, for the appellant.
    
      Eli Soule, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Barker, Haight and Bradley, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of' County Court affirmed.