Term Research: Commercial Paper Case Name: WILLIAM H. CHADDOCK(Defendant) v. JACOB S. VANNESS.(Plaintiff) Legal citation: 35 N.J.L.

517; 1871 N.J. LEXIS 63 Date decided: March, 1871 Legal History: Vanness, the payee, tried to hold Chaddock liable on a note as either a guarantor, maker, or first endorser. The case was tried at the Hudson Circuitand and resulted in favor of the plaintiff, on which judgment was entered in the Supreme Court. Chaddcok, the defendant sought to review the decision in the Supreme Court. Chaddock claimed that parol evidence was not properly received to show the circumstances of the note's making. Facts: Vanness, the payee, received a note dated April 16th, 1869 wherein the Maker, Woodward, would have three months to pay Vanness $2091.98 without discount. The note was endorsed by W.H. Chaddock as a surety for Woodward. Vaness made it clear she would not endorse the note without the endorsement of CHaddock. Chaddock was aware of this and endorsed the note before sending it to Vanness. The maker, Woodward, refused to pay. Legal issue: Is Chaddock liable on the note, either as a guarantor,maker,or first endorser? Decision: Vanness wins. Hudson Circuit Court found in favor of plaintiff. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgement. Legal reasoning: Chaddock was held liabable and named a joint maker because he endorsed the note before giving it the Vanness, the payee, knowing that she would only endorse it if he endorsed it first as a security. Because of this he became the joint maker of the note. Since the maker refused to pay, the payee had every right to hold the joint maker liable to pay the note. So, since the note states that money of $2091.98 was promised to pay to the order of Vanness, as a joint maker of the note, Chaddock unconditionally promises to pay that amount at a definite time, which was three months after the date of the note. Personal Analysis: I think this case was a pretty much straight forward case and not sure why the defendant sought to review the decision. I definitely agree with the decision of both courts. There was an understanding before Vanness, the payee, endorsed the note that Chaddock would endorse it before hand as a security, which would make him a liable. If I am understanding the definition of endorser correctly, which states, a

party other than the maker, drawer, or drawee who signs commercial paper in order to receive enforceable rights, then by Chaddock endorsing the back of the note he made an unconditional promise to pay Vanness the debt owed by Woodward if he did not.