Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-06-19
A CUMBERLAND RgscRlPT.
Judgment for the Plaintiff in a
Promissory Note Case.


The law court, Tuesday, handed
down a rescript in the Cumberland
county ease of Mary Il. Carney Ks.
David w. Corey. ct al. giving jndg=
ment for the plaintiff for S254S.63 with
interest. The reseript which was
drawn by Chief Justice William =.
Whitehouse. is as follows;
This case is presented to the law court
upon report of the evidence. Ihe
question to be determined is the liability
of the plaintiff and of the defendant
Corey upon certain promissorY note
for $500, dated December II, $780, signed
by Ralph +. Bridges, the plaintiff son,
and one of the defendants, and on the
back by the defendant Corey, and the
plaintiff Mary T.. Carney. The plaintiff
claims that She is a surety for~Bridges,
the maker and for the defendant Corey
and hence has the right to be fully IN
IDENTIFIED by Corey against any laDihty
ON the note.
June ~, upon demand os the payee of
the note the defendant Corey paid one-
half Of the amount of Ii. subsequently
the payee recovered judgment against
Bridges, Corey and CanneY for the re-
naming ene-half of the note. and after
execution thereon had been issued and
payment defnanded, the same was paid
by Mrs. Carney. This suit is brought
by her to obtain reimbursement Tor Such
payment from the defendant Corey.
The burden is on the plaintiff to show
that there was an agreement or mutual
understanding that Corey should assume
the relation OF principa, as TO her.
June IL 1906, the defendant Bridges
gave his promisory note t. the defend
ant Corey for $4,000 for capital stock OF
the Carter Il Corey co. which he CLAIMS
he purchased at the solicitation of the
defendant Corey. This note was en-
dorsed by Corey and discounted by the
Trust Co at Pressure Isle of which
Bridges was treasurer, and thus in a
position to grant faNoTs to Carter X
Corey Co. Bridges mad already prior to
that time purchased $4,000 of that stock
at the solicitation. as he said, of corey
and Carter. AT that time the defendant
Corey was treasurer and a large stock
holder OF the Carter & Corey Company
The note for $1,000 was not paid at ma
turity but renewed by a note made pay
able directly to the Trust Co. and en-
dursed by Corey. When this note became
due in June 1gG7 Bridges wished to bor-
row $500 more and TO renew the note for
$500 From the cash that Bridges had
put into the company Tor all OF the stock
purchased by him, Corey haa received a
benefit in the increased value ot-his own
large holdings of stock and he readily
consented to endorse Il renewal note ior
$1,000 But when this note became due in
condition to<pay it, and Corey we'll knew
it. Corey also knew that he himself
was in the position of an original prom
isor on the note, and If the bank should
refuse to renew it and proceed To en-
force collection of the note at that time
he would be Obliged to pay the whole Of
II. IHefe is no evidence III lHe case tffdJ
he was not amply able to pay it.
Corey was deeply interested in having
the note renewed with an additional en-
dorser who might relieve him of one
half of the amount of his liability on it.
As far as appears in evidence. he was
the only one specially Interested in hav-
sing Mrs Carney endorse the note. but
whether he requested the president of
the bank TO inform Bridges that the note
would not be renewed without an addi-
tional endorser. does not expressly APP
Conclusion that the idea 81 having Mrs
Carney indoPse the note was suggested
by Corey.
Mrs. Carney says in her testimony that
Bridges told her, in answer to her con-
tinued protests against signing 1t, that
she wouldn't have to pay but half of it
in any event, Is Mr.. Coreys name was
on there. And she replied that she
couldn't "afford to pay half of it,
Thereupon Mr.. Corey repeated that there
was no question of her having 10 pay
the note and said, The would put ats
name above hers, so she wouldn't be
called upon" Upon the strength of this
final statement, she appears to have
consented TO endorse the note.
Mr. Corey does not deny in his teSti-
mony that he assured Mrs. Carney that
''he would put his name above hers so
that she wouldn't be called upon. lie
knew that she had no knowledge what
ever of the previous history of tne>r
transactions in regard to this note ana
no acquaintance whatever with the law
OF prOfniSOfy notes, anu liidt sue MouIi
believe what he said to her In making
that statement he must be presumed to
have intended to create a belief in the
kind of the plaintiff that he would SO en-
dorse the note as to protect her against
any liability to pay any part of 1t. 1t was
equivalent to an assurance that she was
only required TO sign AS surety for him,
as well as for Bridges, and promise
that as to her he would assume the re-
sponsibility of a principal. He knew that
she so understood it and believed IT. His
in believing it. If he knew his state
ment as to the effect of placing his name
above hers, to be false, he intended to
deceive her. He did not know 1t to be
correct, but recklessly stated as fact
what he did not know to be true. In
either event he is estopped to deny that
he assumed the relation of principal to
the plaintiff, and should in justice be re-
quired to pay the full amount OF the
note.
The certificate must accordingly + be- e;
Judgment for the plaintiff for SEN -
with interest thereon from Feb. 26. 1910.