Show SDPBEME COURT DECISION S I Jn the Supreme Court of Utah Territory tory funs term 1880 Christopher Anderson respondent vs Barnes W Stevens impleaded with George Brazier and William Brazier appellant WiUam Appeal from Third Distiiet Boieman J delivered the opinion of the Court On the 18th of May 1875 George Brazier and William Brazier executed their promissory note due at ninety lays to appellant James W Stevens On 10th February 1877 Stevens transferred the note t Respondent without endorsement in payment of 0 and the Respondent took the note a payment of such amount due him from another party but thus paid by Stevens through an arrangement arrange-ment between that ether party and Stevens The note although past due at the time of the transfer by Steven to Respondent was Repndent represented repre-sented by said Stevens to be good Respondent presented the note to them the-m b era for payment and payment was rfue and several months thereafter there-after respondent notified appellant of such demand and refusal The appellant thvn endorsed the note by writing his name on the back thereof The note was not thereafter paid by the makers but the respondent did not notify appellant of tnh non payment pay-ment by Jbe maker except bj tie institution of bit action The court below gave judgment for plaintiff respondent here and thereupon eaid Stevens defendant appealed to this court The purpose of appellant in endowing endow-ing the note does not appear otherwise other-wise than inferentially No testimony testi-mony was introduced t explain it and there was no valuable consider ation for the endorsement passed at the time it was made The appellant had at tbe time of tbe delivery of the note to respondent represented tj respondent that the note was good We are of a necessity therefore to infer that appellants endorsing the note was simply as a guaranty that the note was good Before therefore the appellant could be held responsible responsi-ble i was incumbent upon the respondent res-pondent to show that the note was not good 2 Parsons on Bills and Notesytp 141 This has not been done nor Attempted to be done No action was ever brought against the makers prior t the present suit to ascertain the act nor any execution execu-tion returned with the return of the officer showing that the money could not be made out of the makers nor is there any proof of the insolvency of the makers at the time of delivery or endorsement since The respondent having faled to show that the note responsible oas not good the appellant was not The judgment of the court below is reversed with costs |