The law of bills, notes and checks . created for their equal benefit, and the burden of proving that one of themakers signed as stirety for the other is upon the party alleging it. Brady v. Brady, 110 Md. 656; 2 Ency. of Evidence, 462; 27 Am.& Eng. Ency. of Law, 438; Richards v. Market Exch. Bank, 81 Ohio St.348,354; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 99; Hunter v. Harris, 63 Or. 505; 127 Oac. 786. One who signs a promissory note as joint maker, although in factsigning as surety for his co-maker, is liable as a maker, although thecapacity in which he signed was known to the payee. He is not dischargedby exte

- Image ID: 2AXE4CH
The law of bills, notes and checks . created for their equal benefit, and the burden of proving that one of themakers signed as stirety for the other is upon the party alleging it. Brady v. Brady, 110 Md. 656; 2 Ency. of Evidence, 462; 27 Am.& Eng. Ency. of Law, 438; Richards v. Market Exch. Bank, 81 Ohio St.348,354; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 99; Hunter v. Harris, 63 Or. 505; 127 Oac. 786. One who signs a promissory note as joint maker, although in factsigning as surety for his co-maker, is liable as a maker, although thecapacity in which he signed was known to the payee. He is not dischargedby exte
The Reading Room / Alamy Stock Photo
Image ID: 2AXE4CH
The law of bills, notes and checks . created for their equal benefit, and the burden of proving that one of themakers signed as stirety for the other is upon the party alleging it. Brady v. Brady, 110 Md. 656; 2 Ency. of Evidence, 462; 27 Am.& Eng. Ency. of Law, 438; Richards v. Market Exch. Bank, 81 Ohio St.348,354; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 99; Hunter v. Harris, 63 Or. 505; 127 Oac. 786. One who signs a promissory note as joint maker, although in factsigning as surety for his co-maker, is liable as a maker, although thecapacity in which he signed was known to the payee. He is not dischargedby extension of time granted without his consent to this co-maker. Cleveland National Bank v. Bickel, 159 Pac. 302; United States v.Hogge, 6 How. 279; Watuga Bank v. Matson, 99 Tenn. 390. One of two or more joint makers of a promissory note may show asagainst the payee what the agreement was at the time of signing it, and ifany valid condition was stiptdated to relieve such maker from liability. Hover v. Magley, 116 App. Div. N. Y. 84.. 180 NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS LAW The foregoing note was signed by three makers and was a security forthe purchase price of a road roller. The sole question arising at the trialof an action thereon was as to whether the note constituted a joint orseveral liability. Each of the makers thereby agreed to pay the amountdue in proportion to his road tax. The plaintiff held that it is unreason-able that a business corporation should assume the determination of theamount due from each maker. The court held that there was no ambiguityon the face of the instrument and that it created a separate and not jointliability. Western Wheel Co. v. Locklin, 100 Mich. 339. Where a promissory note is made by several and states that wepromise to pay it is a joint note, but where it states I promise to payand is signed by two or more it is their joint and several note. Althoughthe promise is expressed by the use of the singular pronoun I, if the inten-tion of all the signers to