Good v. Martin,
95 U.S. 90 (1877)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90 (1877)

Good v. Martin

95 U.S. 90


1. In a suit upon a promissory note, the court below charged the jury that if the defendant, without making any statement of his intention in so doing, wrote his name on the back of the note before its delivery to the payee, he

is presumed to have done so as the surety of the maker, for his accommodation, and to give him credit with the payee, and that, if such presumption is not rebutted by the evidence, he is liable on the note as maker. Held that the charge was not erroneous.

2. The proviso to the third section of the Act of Congress, approved July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 351, that in the courts of the United States no witness shall be excluded in any civil action because he is a party to, or interested in, the issue tried, has no application to the courts of a territory.

3. The act of the Territory of Colorado of Feb. 11, 1870, rendering parties to a suit competent witnesses, did not apply to cases which were at issue at the time of its passage.

This action was brought by Ida Martin, the defendant in error, in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado Territory, against Parker B. Cheeney, William N. Shepard, and John Good, as joint makers of a certain promissory note executed there June 29, 1866, and payable sixty days thereafter to the order of Alexander Davidson, by whom it was, before maturity, endorsed to the plaintiff. The note was signed by the first two defendants, and, before its delivery to the payee thereof, endorsed in blank by Good.

Judgment by default was rendered against Cheeney and Shepard. Good appeared, and pleaded the general issue.

There was a judgment against all the defendants, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory. Good sued out this writ of error.

As the other facts in the case, as well as the assignments of error, are fully set out in the opinion of the Court, they are omitted here.

Page 95 U. S. 91

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.