The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1885-12-30
SOMERSET 8. j. COURT.
cecember Term 1885


j. ID. Pulsifer, Stenographcr.
Amos IL. Fletcher VS. John Harmon.
Action on this note.
"Skowhegan Aug. lG, 1879.
For value received we promise to pay A. II.
Fletcher or order, one hundred, eleven dollars
thirty-hve cents, on demand and interest.
lSigned.) John Harmon and James Harmon.
Endorsement. Dec. 80, 1879 Of sl2 in sled"
DEFENSE. True, this is genuine note Civ
en- for flour and other articles, for defendant 5
bakery in Skowhegan. True, the plaintiff has
never been paid anything on the note, except
the VIZ sled. Our defense is, that we put into
plaintiffs hands for collateral security six prom
lsory notes, signed by Chester Perry Of Pitts
held, In which he promised to pay Lucy Ann
Cook or order, in one year from the 18th day Of
September 1877. S26.G7, and others in five sue
C ,ssife years, following secured by mortgage,
amounting i'll value to Sl60 and that without
oar knowledge or consent, he afterwards on
claim Of Mrs. Cook, gave up to her the collater-
ais; and this action cannot be maintained with
out first accounting therefore.
REILLY. The notes were not indorscd, the
mortgage was not assigned. One Of two things
is true, either your sister Mrs. Cook said to
me when she demanded tho co liberals as her own
property, that you were acting fraudulent part
towards both her and me, or that she and you
together concOcted scheme to defraud me.
After the evidence was out and the defend
ants counsel had addressed the jury, in their
behalf the plaintiff submitted without argti-
ment, claiming that the defendants ON their
own showing had no legal defense
Judge Walton instructed the jury briefly sub
stantially as follows
Gentlemen Of He Jury: This is an action
upon promissory note purporting to be signed
by the defendants, John and james Harmon.
The defendants, both of whom have testified as
witnesses in the case, admit that they signed the
note, and that it was given for good and suf-
fcient consideration, and that nothing has been
paid upon II except what is indorsed, namely
twelve dollars for Sled. In defense, the de-
PENDANTS claim that notes, amounting to Sl60,
secured by mortgage on real estate, were de-
livered to the plaintiff collateral security for
the note in suit, and that, without their know.
edge or consent, he has delivered these notes to
one Mrs. Cook and that, by SO doing, he has
made himself liable to the defendants for their
value; and that, the amount due upon the notes
having been seasonaby filed in set-Of the de-
PENDANTS, not only have complete defense o
the SUIT but are entitled to recover the differ
ence IN value between the note in suit and the
notes pledged to secure its payment. The
plaintiff replies that the notes were wrongfully
pledged to him; that they were the property Of
Mrs. Cook, the defendants sister, to whom they
were made payable, and were left with one OF
the defendants, James Harmon, for safe keep
ing only; and that, being wrungfuly pledged to
him, he upon demand of Mrs. Cook, and after
it was his duty to do. But | do not deem this
reply material; for, | understand the law, if
1t be true, that the notes were rightfully pledged
to the plaintiff and that he wrongfuly surrend-
cred them to Mrs. Cook, the defendants claim
for the notes can not Chilled in sct-of, nor their
value allowed by way Of recoupment; and in
struct you that the evidence offered in defense,
il we give to it its full weght-that is. il ad
init that it proves every thing which it legiti-
mately tends to prove, and We draw from it
every inference which may legitmately be
drawn from it,-it constitutes no defense to the
action, and that it is your duty to return a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for the balance due upon
the note declared on. 1t will be time enough
for the defendants to call the plaintiff to an ac-
count when they have paid the note in suit;
for, till that is done, he, and not they, is entitled
to the possession Of the notes pledged to him;
and when, by payment of the note in suit, the
defendants have become entitled to the poses
sion of the notes pledged to secure its payment
it is possible that the plaintiff will have rcgaincd
the possession Of them and be able to surrender
them.
Verdict for plaintiff. Sl37.4S.
Merrill & Coffin foi plaintiff.
Stewart with Danforth for defendants.
Tae,day.-Turncr Boswell vs. Oliver Mou-
ton. Action for services as a surveyor, appointed
by the Court to run a disputed line in an action
wherein b. L. Bartlett ct al were plffs and this
same Moulton was defendant. The land in dis
putc in tina, case was very large tract of timber
land. Moulton charged with cutting over
the line and to settle the line with exactness be-
came very important because there depended
upon it not only the right in the land but the
costs in hoty contested lawsuit. The survc,s
or spent some 30 days in making surveys and
plans and in consultation with attorneys on both
sides and charged for his personal services 800
and also for his cash disbursements, one half of
which was agreed TO be paid by each party. b.
f. Bartlett paid his half and Moulton paid 500
towards his half leaving due S70.j6 with charges
for interest.
DErEN'E.-lrue, did agree to pay one half
of the expense of the survey The whole ex-
pcnso to be ascertaincd by Buswe. | did not
agree that Buswell should act as referee to de-
eide what allowance should be made to the par
ties in the suit for our furnishings Of cash and
supplies The surveyor allowed me too little
and Bartlett too much.
Verdict for plh. E7l.lS.
II. NJ. Heath for DIT.
Waltons with Boswell for Pf
IIedaetday. A. Dinsmorc VS.. Oliver
Moulton. Action for balance due for supplies
furnished dcft's. lumbermen. S24.0i.
DErKNsE.-lhe plaintiff was overpaid on a
check $40 and the balance | never promised to
pay. On trial
Boswell with Waltons for PlH.
H. NJ. Heath for DIT.
.-----=--