Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-01-04
TWO RESCRlPTS
From the Supreme Bench Received at Clerk OF
Courts Office.
jana

The following rescripts have been re
ceived at the clerk of courts office:
Yates vs. Goodwin Rescript by Saw
age, j.
A corporation, March 18th, hired money
of person for which it gave its noe
payable to its own order, on demand, and
indorscd by it in blank. Upon the back
of the note, under the name of the maker
the defendant had put his own name.
Held, that the defendant was an indorser
only, and liable only on proof of demand
and notice.
The person to whom the note was given
! died, July 4th 1894. without having made
demand for it's payment. In Septembsr
one of the administrators of his estate
Nov. Is, 1894 the defendant wrote upon
the back of the note these words: "De-
mand for payment, Nov. IL, k9l. Inc
defendant was also treasure Of the cor
poration maker of the note. The defend
ant claims that no demand was i'll TACT
made. But the court holds. that the very
act of the defendant in writing these
words may properly be regarded as de
mand by himself administrator upon
himself as treasurer, and that as indorser
he necessarily had notice thereof.
Moreover the defendant having turnc i
over the note with the foregoing STATE
ment of demand upon 1t, to certain of the
heirs as a part of their inheritance, ana
under circumstances from when the court
is of opinion that 1t may be assumed That
the heirs relied upon the statement, IL
is held that the defendant is estOpped to
deny that there was demand as stated
or that there he had notice. which fol-
lows necessarily.
The court is of opinion that the note
sued upon was intended to be contin-
uing security, an investment OF moIc
or less permanent character, and mat IL
was not intended by the parties tnat aii
Immediate or early demand for payment
should be made. 1t is therefore held that
the delay i'm manking demand was no.
fl,n dafn la
released from his liability as indorser By
reason of the delay.
While demand for payment of demand
note must be made WITHIN "a rea ,.'bat ;s
a easonable time may depend upon many
circumstances, among winch are inc pui
nose of the note and the intention OF tnc
parties respecting it. If 1t be given lor
. loan of money and be on interest, es-
pecially If the rate OF interest," speculeu
ne less than the statutory rate, lnese
facts are regarded as having d s.io ~
tendency to show that the note was N
tended TO be a continuing security, anu
that Immediate or early demand LOT pay,
ment was not intended. And in such
case. failure to make an immaculate OF
early demand is NOT unreaSohape'
Defendant defaufted.
VIM. s. Hume ct al. In Ed. VS.. Wiihahi
r. Allen ct ais. Rescript. Ga
From the admissible evidence we iuu
the TRANSACTIONS 10 nave 49,"
tally as follows: In the nrst par ~
March. 1880. the defendant W1iiiam *. ~,
len was much involved financlaly c anu 49,
particular was owing the pIailil;: ,;,,,d.
sGrN. Besides his own separate inui ,.r.,,
nal Dropcrty and his interest In tnc III ~ |
of r VIZ. Allen & Sons, ne was neir. " |
one seventh of the estate of his ia.ncr'
r W. Allen, who had recently Cleo ~.
tetafe and whose estate was IN process
If settlement in the probate court ...
March 9, 1S99 he had conference VII
the nlaintiff in reference to MS ln9epts
ness to thin and on that day paid tne.n
s1S00 on account and agreed 70 six "o en v
n mortgage on his property Ior ~ ~ %.
fore this mortgage was executeu IL VA
ferrcd with some of ms Drothels ar.u,
~ res,,lt Of that conference, he CAV
10 h,s co-heirs of his father deed OF
~ ,,, ,oS of his one-seventh int sest IN
,'; fthcr,s estate. These other heirs
are the other defendants In this suit the
',,rnosa n this conveyance was 10 Sc
r',ra. the grantees thy other heirs, LOT
VIA tcyer Indebtedness he might De III
Sar ~ them or either of them. or to the
o.t,to ~ their father. Il. w. Allen. or 70
~ firm If r. w. Aliens Sons. IL was
ny o1nt,rad nv them or some OF them lhat
! q uras Ems inte bted more or less. When
this Indebtedness was aoJustcu anu PAM,
WI = Allen. the grantor, was TO
nave the surplus OF the property conveyed
Il any ...+ 81. commencement
W 90 not l,,,sf up the conveyed one
.nren9h eue $3.50. ~ from his other creditors,
M ~ ,.llss. secure his relatives for
~, IL r,sshf u owing them upon set i