Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/286

260 260 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. because of any detriment, loss, or disadvantage to the promisee or payee of the draft? No doubt a bill or note, if negotiable, or con- taining the words "value received," prima facie imports a consid- eration of some kind, but that does not indicate at all whether such consideration was loss to the promisee or gain to the promisor. If a note reads *' For value received of A. B., I promise to pay C. D., or order, one hundred dollars on demand, with interest," cannot C. D. recover on that note, although he gave no consid- eration for it, and sustained no loss or detriment? If the holder of a promissory note says to the maker, *' I feel uneasy about this note, I wish you would get A. B. to guarantee it " ; and thereupon the maker, for a consideration wholly ad- vanced by himself, procures A. B. to write his guaranty upon the back of the note, with the knowledge and assent of all par- ties, cannot the holder recover upon that guaranty although he has given nothing for such guaranty? Of course he could if he agrees to forbear suing upon the note, since he then furnishes part of the consideration in the suspension of his right; but suppose this transaction takes place before the note is due, and when there is no right of action to suspend, what then? Is the guaranty nugatory? Of course, also, upon the strict principles held in some courts, there should be in such case a privity between the holder of the note and the guarantor; for some courts hold that if the latter, merely by an arrangement with the maker, unknown to the holder, and without his request, signs a guaranty for the note, the holder could not, upon afterwards hearing of the guaranty, enforce it; since privity of both parties in both the promise and the consid- eration is necessary to sustain the action. Ellis v. Clark ;i Pratt V. Heddon.2 But the question still remains, if the holder of the note was present when the guaranty was made, and assented to it, and so became privy to the promise^ is it absolutely necessary that he should also part with something, in order to enable him to recover upon such promise of guaranty, if the guarantor has in fact received some valuable consideration from the maker of the note? This principle does not apply merely to negotiable paper. In Doty V. Wilson,^ the defendant, having been arrested by a sheriff on execution, was allowed to go at large, for which act the sheriff 1 no Mass. 389. 2 121 Mass. 116. ^ j^ Johns. 378 (1871).