Court Opinion

ID: 6432272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:09:19.574877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:52:14.682090
License: Public Domain

Rugg, C. J.
There was evidence from which it might have been found that the plaintiff was simply the agent of one of the indorsers of the note in taking up the note after maturity and in bringing this action.
The defendant was the first of the four indorsers upon the note. The true relation as between themselves of parties liable on a note may be shown by oral evidence in actions between them to determine their respective obligations. It is only in the absence of proof to the contrary that the law fixes the legal effect of their liability on the instrument in accordance with the order of the signatures. Enterprise Brewing Co. v. Canning, 210 Mass. 285. When an outside agreement is proved, the rights of the parties as to each other are fixed in accordance with its terms regardless of the order in which the signatures appear on the note. Lewis v. Monahan, 173 Mass. 122. There was ample evidence to support a finding that the indorsers, of whom there were three at the outset, agreed before signing the original note chat they should share equally whatever they might be required to pay on it, and that later when the wife of one of the three signed a renewal of the original note, making four indorsers, it was agreed that the proportion of liability of the defendant should remain the same. The jury, as shown by the verdict, believed that this agreement *83was made. The plaintiff technically was not entitled to recover on the note. The action should have been by the indorser who has paid for contribution upon the oral agreement. The rulings were sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff.

Exceptions overruled.