114 A.2d 880
No. 4411.Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack.Argued June 7, 1955.
Decided June 22, 1955.
An accommodation maker of a promissory note undertakes to pay it according to its tenor and his obligation is as primary and absolute as that of the ordinary maker of a note and he is not entitled to presentment for payment or to notice of dishonor.
The consideration advanced by the payee to the maker is sufficient to support the latter’s promise as well as that of the accommodation maker.
The liability of an accommodation maker is not affected by the fact that the payee at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be merely an accommodation party.
ASSUMPSIT, to recover the balance due on a note, dated July 6, 1950, due thirty days thereafter, in the principal amount of $1,200, made to the order of the plaintiff by James T. Lampesis and by his brother, the defendant, Peter T. Lampesis.
Trial by the Court (Griffith, J.) resulted in a verdict for plaintiff.
Defendant’s exceptions to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to the denial of his motions for judgment in his favor were reserved and transferred.
Orr Reno and Malcolm McLane (Mr. McLane orally), for the plaintiff.
McCabe Fisher and Harold D. Moran (Mr. Moran orally), for the defendant.
LAMPRON, J.
The defendant became a maker on the note as an accommodation to his brother James and it could be found to have been also at his request. Leonard v. Woodward, 305 Mass. 332. The consideration for the note, and an assignment not material here, was an advance of $2,200 made to James by the plaintiff. All of these facts were known to Comolli.
Under R. L., c. 366, s. 29, an accommodation maker “is liable on the instrument to a holder for value.” The $2,200 advanced to James by Comolli constituted consideration or value to support
Page 463
James’ promise as maker as well as that of the defendant. Johnson v. Favazza, 325 Mass. 627; South Side Window Frame Shop v. Parker, (Ill.App.)13 N.E.2d 863; Britton, Bills and Notes, 366. Defendant’s liability would not be affected by the fact that Comolli “at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party.” S. 29. Amodeo v. Allen, 94 N.H. 370, 371; Johnson v. Favazza, supra; Britton, Id., 367.
By signing the note as a maker defendant undertook to pay it according to its tenor and his obligation became primary and absolute the same as that of the ordinary maker of a note. R. L., c. 366, s. 191; Stoughton Trust Co. v. Pike, 282 Mass. 39.
Being primarily liable (Cf. Merchants National Bank v. Lewis, 86 N.H. 144) defendant was not entitled to presentment for payment or to notice of dishonor. R. L., c. 366, ss. 70, 89. Bank Commissioners v. Trust Co., 70 N.H. 536, 538; Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 164 Wis. 131; South Side Window Frame Shop v. Parker, (Ill.App.) 13 N.E.2d 863, supra. See Dunning v. Dunning, 300 N.Y. 341.
In view of the conclusion reached it is unnecessary to consider whether plaintiff as payee was or could be a holder in due course.
Judgment on the verdict.
All concurred.