articles at a time and place fixed, the maker 23. The purchaser of the plaintiff's goods must, at the time and place fixed, designate the of the plaintiff's factor gave his note therefor articles he offers in payment. If payable on payable to his own order, and simultaneously demand and a demand is made, he must de- indorsed it in blank. Held, that this was in liver the articles so as to place them at the dis-effect a note to the plaintiff, and not to the posal of the payee. Wood v. Beeman, Brayt. factor. Blackman v. Green, 24 Vt. 17. 24. The validity of a negotiable promissory 227. 18. Writing name on the back. One who note, or the payee's title thereto, is not imwrites his name on the back of a promissory peached by the fact that it appears to have note, not before being a party to it, assumes, been indorsed in full to a third person, but prima facie, the obligation of maker, and may with such indorsement erased. Tappan v. Nutbe sued as such, the same as if he had signed ting, Brayt. 137. the note on its face. But, the indorsement being in blank, parol evidence may be given of the real obligation intended to be assumed as, of guarantor, indorser, &c. Barrows v. Lane, 5 Vt. 161. Knapp v. Parker, 6 Vt. 642. Flint v. Day, 9 Vt. 345. Nash v. Skinner, 12 Vt. 219. Sanford v. Norton, 14 Vt. 228. S. C. 17 Vt. 285. Strong v. Riker, 16 Vt. 554. Sylvester v. Downer, 20 Vt. 355. 23 Vt. 163. 19. Where the defendant, not a party to a promissory note, wrote his name on the back of it in blank long after it was made, and after it had passed from the payee without his indorsement: Held, that the defendant could be sued as maker, in the name of the payee, for the benefit of the holder. Strong v. Riker. 25. In cases of promissory notes and bills of exchange, a promise to the agent, naming him and not his principal, although the word agent, or cashier, be added to his name, is a promise to the agent as an individual, and the addition is simply descriptive of the person. Johnson v. Catlin, 27 Vt. 87. 26. A negotiable promissory note given for a patent right, without the words, "Given for a patent right" inserted, as required by Stat. 1870, No. 68, is good in the hands of a bona fide holder for value, who takes it before maturity without notice of what it was given for. Pendar v. Kelley, 48 Vt. 27. 27. So, it is good without these words in the hands of an assignee, though with notice of the consideration, if the patent right was good 20. Where the defendant, in the State of and formed an adequate consideration for the New York, put his name upon the back of a note,-the statute not declaring such note void, promissory note signed by A and made payable but being designed only to prevent the transfer to the plaintiff in New York, for the purpose to innocent and bona fide purchasers. Streit v. of enabling A to purchase therewith property Waugh, 48 Vt. 298. of the plaintiff, and the note was so used;- 28. Condition. Where a note was given, Held, that the defendant was liable thereon as subject to the condition that it should not be an original promissor; and that this liability enforced unless there should be a failure of title was not limited by a declaration of the defend-in C to certain lands by him mortgaged;;ant, at the time he put his name upon the note, that he would stand by such signature only as a second indorser, where this declaration was not brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Nash v. Skinner, 12 Vt. 219. 17 Vt. 292. 31 29. On demand. There is no difference Vt. 320. between a note payable "when demanded," 21. Other forms. Where in the body of a and on demand. In either case, the note is due promissory note the language was: "We the immediately, and may be sued without demand, subscribers, jointly and severally, each one for and the statute of limitations begins to run himself, as principal," &c., but one of the sign- from its date. Kingsbury v. Butler, 4 Vt. 458. ers attached to his signature the word surety ;· 30. A note given by one who is a constable, Held, that he must be treated as surety. People's to an attorney, made payable "in officer's fees, Bank v. Persons, 30 Vt. 711. Otherwise, in as constable," without more, is by legal conlike case-except that the word surety was not struction payable on demand or on request. added to the signature. Claremont Bank v. Thrall v. Mead, 40 Vt. 540. Wood, 10 Vt. 582. Held, that the question of title could be determined in an action on the note, so far as respected the obligation of the note. Reed v. Field, 15 Vt. 672. 31. Grace. A note dated Aug. 25 and pay22. A promissory note in the terms follow-able, with grace, four years from date, falls ing: "We, in behalf of the First Methodist due Aug. 28. Ripley v. Greenleaf, 2 Vt. Episcopal Society in Middlebury, promise," 129. &c., and signed by the defendants in the usual 32. Place of payment. Where a promform without any additions, was held to be, at issory note is made payable generally, no parleast prima facie, the note of the defendants ticular place of payment being named therein, and their personal obligation. Pomeroy v. the place where it was made is the place of paySlade, 16 Vt. 220. ment, without regard to the residence of the parties or the place of date. Blodgett v. Durgin, |if A did not drink more than three glasses [of 32 Vt. 361, and see Bryant v. Edson, 8 Vt. 325. liquor] a day during his natural life, B's note was to be obligatory; but if A drank more than that number, then his note was to be in force. A forfeited the condition [of course] and his note was delivered to B by the holder. Held, that the note could not be enforced. Conant v. Jackson, 16 Vt. 335. 33. Where a note is made payable at a particular place as at a bank-the holder may recover against the maker for non-payment, without averring or proving a presentment and demand. A deposit of the money there, when due, would be a payment of the note. Hart v. Green, 8 Vt. 191. 34. A note made payable to (not at) a bank, like a note payable to an individual person, is, whether negotiable or not, payable wherever it may be in lawful custody. Bank of Newbury v. Richards, 35 Vt. 281. 43. L, being indebted to the plaintiff, procured H to sign a note with him, as his surety, running to the plaintiff, payable in 60 days, which the plaintiff received in payment of L's debt. In procuring the signature of H to the note, L represented to him that he wished to 35. Consideration. The compromise with- use the money in an operation that he could out fraud of a doubtful claim, or contingent make immediately profitable, and he had found liability as the settlement of a bastardy prose- a friend who would let him have the money on cution—is a sufficient consideration to support the note. L was wholly destitute of property, a promissory note, and it cannot be avoided by proof that the maker was not in fact or law originally liable. Holcomb v. Stimpson, 8 Vt. 141. insolvent, and so remained. H signed the note, relying upon these representations and that L would realize from his operation and pay the note. In an action against L;-Held, that he was liable on the note. Quinn v. Hard, 43 Vt. 375. 36. Chancery will not relieve the maker of a promissory note given to compromise a pending action for slander, where it does not appear 44. Held, also, there being nothing in the that the action was maliciously brought, or facts to create a suspicion of notice to the plainthat there was such overreaching and fraud on tiff of any fraud, or any suspicion of bad faith the part of the payce as makes it unconscion- on his part, that it was for the defendant, if he able for him to retain the note. Paris v. Dex-imputed any such thing, to prove it. Ib, 380. 45. The legal intendment is, that the payee ter, 15 Vt. 379. 37. Information given in good faith to a of a note takes it upon the faith of the persons party litigant, and disclosing the names of im- whose names appear upon it as makers. Smith portant witnesses in his suit, may be a good v. Hill, 45 Vt. 90. consideration for a note. Chandler v. Mason, 2 Vt. 193. 46. Illegal. A note given in whole or in part for the compounding of penalties or sup 38. The consideration of a note was a quit-pressing of a criminal prosecution is void, the claim deed of land of which the grantor had no consideration being illegal. Hinesburgh v. Sumtitle, but of which he fraudulently pretended ner, 9 Vt. 23. Woodruff v. Hinman, 11 Vt. to have title. Held, a good defense to the note. 592. Bowen v. Buck, 28 Vt. 308. Hawley v. Beeman, 2 Tyl. 238. 47. A note given for the suppression of a 39. A note given for a patent right may be criminal prosecution for obtaining goods by defended against, on the ground that the patent false pretences, is upon an illegal consideration was void by reason of its not being for a new and void; and this, although the representation invention, although the patent remains unre- that such prosecution had been commenced was pealed, and although the pretended patent was false, but was acted upon as true, and although conveyed by deed with covenant. Parot v. the note given is only for the amount of the Farnsworth, Brayt. 174. debt justly due. Boren v. Buck. 40. The right of raising money by a lottery, Further as to consideration, see CONTRACT, I. once granted by the State, but dormant for 48. Guaranty of genuineness. A person about thirty years and without regularly ap-giving a security in payment, or procuring it to pointed managers, was held not to furnish a be discounted, vouches for its genuineness; but good consideration for a note given for a pur- this rule has not been extended to the case chase of the right. Rogers v. Hough, 4 Vt. 172. where the party, when receiving or discount41. A promissory note, the only considera- ing the paper, is presumed from his relation to tion of which, however expressed, is love and it to have the means of correct knowledge as to affection, cannot be enforced at law or in equity its genuineness, or where it has been kept an against the maker or his estate. Holley v. unreasonable time without notice to the other Adams, 16 Vt. 206. Smith v. Kittridge, 21 Vt. party of its spurious character. Bank of St. Albans v. Farm. & Mech. Bank, 10 Vt. 141. 11 Vt. 520. 19 Vt. 206. 238. 42. A and B executed, each to the other, a note of $2,000, and placed the notes in the hands of a third person under a condition, that indorsed 49. On the sale of a promissory note, though without recourse," a warranty of its validity is implied. Hannum v. Richardson, pay in the manufacture of the plaster bed on 48 Vt. 508. Stearn's land. S. A. Capron." Held, that the 50. Recognition. The indorsement of part note was payable in money, and not upon a payment upon a note by the holder, without contingency but at all events, and was negotiproof of actual payment, has no tendency to prove the maker's recognition of the validity of the note. Brown v. Munger, 16 Vt. 12. able; the uncertainty as to time of payment being made certain by the law, viz: reasonable time after the expiration of the year, "if there was not enough realized." Capron v. Capron, 44 Vt. 410. 51. Where the purchaser of property, for which he has given his promissory note, insists upon holding the property under his purchase, 57. Deposit certificate. A certificate of this operates as an affirmance of the contract in deposit made payable to the order of the depoall its particulars, and he cannot question either sitor, "on the return of this certificate," or "on the validity or the amount of the note. Har- the presentation of this certificate properly inrington v. Lee, 33 Vt. 249. dorsed," is negotiable. Smilie v. Stevens, 39 Vt. An action 315. Bellows Falls Bank v. Rutland Co. Bank, 52. Negotiability of notes. does not lie in favor of an assignee of an instru- 40 Vt. 377. 53. A note payable to order, or bearer, in current bills, cannot be sued in the name of an indorsee the same not being payable "in money." Collins v. Lincoln, 11 Vt. 268. 58. County order. An order drawn by the judges of the county court upon the county treasurer, payable to A B, or order, is not negotiable so as that an action will lie upon it in the name of an indorsee. Hyde v. Franklin County, 27 Vt. 185. 59. Town order. A town order, negoti54. A note was made payable to "M, or able in form, was held negotiable in Dalrymple bearer, on demand, after a lease shall be given v. Whitingham, 26 Vt. 345. Cook v. Winhall, up from M to O, dated," &c. In the absence 43 Vt. 434. Contra, Taft v. Pittsford, 28 Vt. of any proof as to the length of time the lease 288. was to run ;-Held, that the note was payable 60. Time of negotiating, &c. A note upon a contingency, and therefore not negoti- originally negotiable ceases to be so by the able, and could be sued only in the name of M. death of the maker and an adjudication thereDowner v. Tucker, 31 Vt. 204. on by the commissioners. Jarvis v. Barker, 3 Vt. 445. 55. The negotiability of a note or bill, or certificate of deposit, is not destroyed by a con- 61. As it relates to the negotiability of notes tingency which depends on an event which payable on demand, and in questions between necessarily must happen, so that the only con- the indorsee and indorser, and between the intingency, or uncertainty, is as to time; nor, if dorsee and the maker, they are to be considered the contingency, as to time of payment, de- as payable in a reasonable time; and what is a pends on an act to be done by the holder in reasonable time is a question of law to be decidreference to the instrument itself, to hasten or ed by the court, on the facts which may be found fix the time of payment; as if made payable a by the jury. Dennett v. Wyman, 13 Vt. 485. given number of days after presentment and demand. In such case, the instrument imports an absolute indebtedness. Peck, J., in Smilie v. Stevens, 39 Vt. 315. Bellows Falls Bank v. Rutland Co. Bank, 40 Vt. 377. 62. The defendants were partners, and K, one of them, furnished money to be used in the partnership business and took a note therefor, payable to himself or order, signed by himself and the other defendants individually. K's wife became owner of the note and sent it to the plaintiff by K for collection, and K indorsed it to the plaintiff for collection merely. K made no defense. Held, that the plaintiff could recover against all the defendants. Ormsbee v. Kidder, 48 Vt. 361. 56. But where the contingency is collateral to the instrument, and depends on an act to be done, on the performance of which the liability of the party sought to be charged depends, it is not negotiable--and so held, where a certificate of deposit, in form negotiable, was made payable on the return of a certain outstanding guaranty, 63. Place of payment-Lex loci. A progiven by the signer of the certificate, of a cer- missory note payable generally, that is, where tain note of the payee of the certificate. Smilie no particular place of payment is mentioned, v. Stevens. is to be treated as a note of the place or coun 56. The plaintiff, as bearer, brought suit try where made, and to be payable there; and upon the following note: 'Brandon, March the rights, duties and obligations growing out 14. 1868. For value received I promise to pay of it, and matters in discharge of it, are to Barzillai Davenport, or bearer, seventy-five dol- be determined by the laws of that place, or lars, one year from date with interest annually; country. Peck v. Hibbard, 26 Vt. 698. and if there is not enough realized by good| 64. The liability of the maker of a promismanagement in one year, to have more time to sory note and to what person liable, whether the payee, indorsee, or a creditor under an attach-maker could not set up such payment in dement by the trustee process, is to be determined fense, although by the law of this State, as it by the laws of the State which determine the then was, such payment would have been a deobligation of the contract. Emerson v. Pat-fense if this had been a Vermont contract. ridge, 27 Vt. 8. Chase v. Houghton, 16 Vt. Harrison v. Edwards, 12 Vt. 648. 594. Worden v. Nourse, 36 Vt. 756. v. Winn, 38 Vt. 122. Wheeler 71. Where a promissory note was executed and dated in the State of New York and made 65. If the situs of the debt is here, the sub-payable generally with interest, and from the ject matter being within this jurisdiction, the circumstances attending the transaction it apvalidity and effect of a judgment, wherever peared reasonably certain that the parties conpleaded in defense, would be determined by templated and understood that it was to be paid our law, and not by the law of the foreign in Vermont ;-Held, in an action by an assignee forum. So held as to an attachment by trustee who took the note overdue, that interest should process. Ib. See Baylies v. Houghton, 15. Vt. be cast at the Vermont rate, six per cent. 626. Austin v. Imus, 23 Vt. 286. [The circumstan66. The maker, resident in this State, of a ces were these: The payee, residing on his negotiable promissory note drawn and made farm in Addison, Vt., sold the farm to the payable in this State, though to a resident citi- maker, then residing at Moriah, N. Y. The zen of another State, may be held as trustee of the payee under the trustee process. Chase v. Houghton, 16 Vt. 594. 72. The law of the place of payment of a promissory note determines as to days of grace. Blodgett v. Durgin, 32 Vt. 361. Bryant v. Edson, 8 Vt. 325. deed of the farm and this mortgage note with others given therefor, were executed and dated at Moriah, the payee, by the deed, reserving 67. This is so, although, by the laws of the the use of part of the dwelling house on the State where the payee resides, such paper is farm, and part of the fruit, for himself and faminot subject to the trustee process, and although ly, for a time extending beyond the maturity of the payee may have transferred the note before the notes ;-the note read: "For value received its maturity to another resident citizen of that in Moriah," &c.] state, if the indorsee fail to give notice of such transfer to the maker before service of the trustee process. Emerson v. Patridge, 27 Vt. 8. Worden v. Nourse, 36 Vt. 756. Wheeler v. Winn, 38 Vt. 128. 73. The plaintiff residing in New Hamp68. So, under like circumstances, where no shire, sold to D in Massachusetts where he replace of payment was specified in the note, but sided, cattle, and took D's note therefor dated the note was executed and delivered in this in Massachusetts, payable generally in 15 days State, for a debt contracted in this State, and from date. The plaintiff brought the note to in part settlement of a business which continu- Vermont where the defendant resided, and the ed down to the service of the writ ;-Held, that defendant there signed it. Held, that the note the note must be taken to be payable in this was payable in Massachusetts, and the defendState; that the situs of the debt was here, and ant was entitled to grace under the law of Masthe law of this State controls; and the maker of sachusetts. Bryant v. Edson. the note was held chargeable as trustee of the payee. Worden v. Nourse. 74. Upon notes and drafts drawn in this State and payable in New York the current 69. A negotiable promissory note, executed rate of exchange, as customary and legal in by a citizen of this State in the State of Massa-that State, was allowed in making up the judgchusetts, and payable and delivered to a citizen ment. Farmers' Bank v. Burchard, 33 Vt. of that State, but without place of payment 346. specified, was held, by intendment, as payable Further as to the law of place, see CON in Massachusetts, and not subject in this State TRACTS, II. INTEREST, 27 and seq. to attachment by trustee process for the debt of the payee, it being exempt from such process by II. PRESENTMENT AND ACCEPTANCe of Bills. the law of Massachusetts. Baylies v. Houghton, 15 Vt. 626. Approved, Worden v. Nourse, 36 Vt. 760; but the place of execution ought not to be decisive. Peck, J. Ib. 75. The holder of a bill of exchange made payable in any specified time after sight, or after demand made, must present it for accept70. Where a promissory note was executed ance within a reasonable time; but where the in the State of New York between parties resi- bill is made payable at a given time from the dent there, and was there negotiated while cur- date, he is not bound to present it for acceptrent, but was paid by the maker before maturi- ance until the day named for payment. Bank ty, and suit was afterwards brought thereon in of Bennington v. Raymond, 12 Vt. 401. this State in the name of the bona fide holder 76. There is no rule requiring that a bill of for value-Held, that the law of New York exchange must be actually shown to the drawee, furnished the rule of decision; and that the in order to a valid and binding acceptance. It is enough, if, when applied to for acceptance, and the acceptor cannot set up, as against the he is enabled by seeing the bill, or otherwise, payee, that, as between himself and the drawer, to give an intelligent answer. Fisher v. Beck- there was no consideration. Arnold v. Sprague, 77. A contract to pay an order to be drawn 84. Where a bill of exchange is drawn upon upon a party, binds him to pay it according to the party personally, and he accepts it in his the contract, and he cannot change it by a own name, he is bound personally although he qualified acceptance of the order when present- is in fact agent of another, and this known to ed. Havens v. Griffin. N. Chip. 42. the payee. Ib. 78. A parol acceptance of a bill of exchange 85. Where a bill for value is accepted, the is binding. Fisher v. Beckwith, 19 Vt. 31. acceptor is the party primarily liable, and the Bank of Rutland v. Woodruff, 34 Vt. 92. Ar- drawer is but his surety, or guarantor. The nold v. Sprague, 34 Vt. 402. release of the drawer, in such case, by the holder, is a relinquishment merely of so much of his security, and does not affect the liability of the acceptor. Farm. & Mech. Bank v. 79. At common law a parol or oral acceptance of a bill is binding. It is not within the statute of frauds, nor is it void for want of consideration;—for the common presumption is, Rathbone, 26 Vt. 19. that the bill was drawn on account of some in- 86. Where a bill of exchange was drawn debtedness from the drawee to the drawer, and so the acceptance is an undertaking by the drawee to pay his own debt. Fisher v. Beckwith. Arnold v. Sprague. tance. and accepted at the time when the drawer had an open account with the acceptor for goods which the drawer was in course of sending to the acceptor for sale, with the apparent understanding that the bill was to be paid by the acceptor and charged in the general account ;Held, that the bill should be treated as drawn for value, and not as an accommodation bill, and imposed upon the acceptor the primary obligation to pay it; and that its legal character, in this respect, was not affected by any subsequent alteration in the balance of the account, nor by the fact, afterwards ascertained, that the drawer was indebted to the acceptor at the 80. A parol acceptance of a draft is binding; and such acceptance, varying the time of payment from the time specified in the bill, is as binding as if absolute according to the terms of the bill, if the holder receives this as an accepVt. Marble Co. v. Mann, 36 Vt. 697. 81. The defendants, residing in New York, were drawees of two bills of exchange to which the drawer and indorser were parties only for the accommodation of the drawees. The defendants presented the bills to the plaintiff's time of the acceptance. Ib. agent resident in New York to be forwarded by him to the plaintiff's bank in Vermont for dis- III. count for their use, assuring such agent that the bills should be paid, but they did not accept the bills in writing, as required by the statute of 87. Prima facie payment. A promissory New York. The agent presented the bills at note, either of the debtor or of a third person, the bank in Vermont, and upon his report of given in settlement of an account or for a prewhat had taken place between him and the de-vious debt, is prima facie payment, so that a fendants in New York, the bank discounted suit cannot be maintained upon the original inthe bills, and the proceeds were sent to the de- debtedness, whether the note be paid or not. fendants in New York and were used by them. Hutchins v. Olcutt, 4 Vt. 549. Torrey v. Baxter, Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover 13 Vt. 452. Farr v. Stevens, 26 Vt. 299. Colupon the common counts as for money loaned, lamer v. Langdon, 29 Vt. 32. Wait v. Brewster, treating the bills as collateral security;-also, 31 Vt. 516. 46 Vt. 460. EFFECT WHERE NOTE IS GIVEN FOR A semble, this might be treated as a valid parol ac- 88. Such presumption may be rebutted by ceptance in Vermont, and a recovery be had on evidence that the note was not received as paythe special count for an acceptance. Bank of ment, and whether so received is a question of Rutland v. Woodruff, 34 Vt. 89. fact dependent upon the contract or understand 82. The acceptance of a bill by the drawee ing of the parties. Follett v. Steele, 16 Vt. 30. is prima facie evidence of his having in his Fare v. Stevens. Collamer v. Langd n. Wait hands effects of the drawer to the amount of v. Brewster. Dickinson v. King, 28 Vt. 378. the bill. Hence, such acceptance and payment will not, of themselves, sustain a count in assumpsit against the drawer for money paid to his use. Chittenden v. Hurlburt, 2 Aik. 133. 19 Vt. 34. 89. Where the creditor accepts either the promissory note of his debtor, or of a third person, in settlement of a previously unsettled matter of account or dealing, this, prima facie, is payment. But if the debtor's note be by mis83. A debt due from the drawer of a bill of take defective, so that no recovery can be had exchange to the payee is a good consideration upon it, or if such note, or bill, of a third perfor he acceptance of the bill by the drawee; son prove unavailable, without the creditor's |