Case ID: blackf_1/html/0191-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Odam v. Beard, in Error.
    AN assignee against an assignor of a sealed note. Assignment as follows: — “For value received, I do hereby assign all my right to the within note to Jesse Beard, Feb. 20, 1820. — David Odam.”' The plaintiff had previously sued the maker, who proved to be insolvent. Held, that parol evidence was inadmissible to show that the assignment was without recourse 
      .
    
      Held, also, Holman J. dissentiente, that if the maker was solvent at the term when the assignee might have obtained judgment against him but for a defect in the declaration, and if that defect occasioned a continuance whereby the plaintiff failed to obtain the money, from the maker, the assignor was not liable.
    
      
       In an action by the indorsees against the indorserrof a promissory note, the defence was, that the defendantshad refused to indorse it, until the plaintiffs agreed that it shouldberenewed when due; but that the plaintiffs, instead of calling for a renewal, had demanded payment of the note when due. Parol proof-of this defence was rejected; and per Ld. Ellenborough, The parol condition is quite inconsistent with the wriiten instrument. The condition for a renewal entirely contradicts the instrument which the defendants have signed. There may,” after a bill is drawn, be a binding promise for a valuable consideration to renew it when due; but if the promise is cotemporaneous with the drawing of the bill, the law will not enforce it. This would be incorporating with a written contract an incongruous parol condition, — which is contrary,to first principles. Hoare etal. v. Graham et al. 3 Camp. 57.