
    John Gains vs. James E. Hasty et als.
    
    
      Evidence — one person's declarations cannot bind another not privy.
    
    James E. Hasty exhibited to James M. Burbank a note purporting to bear the signature of Oliver S. Hasty, and to induce Burbank to sign it, declared that Oliver had signed it; held, that this declaration was improperly admitted.
    
      On exceptions.
    Assumpsit upon a note for $215, dated May 12, 1869, signed on its face by James E. Hasty, and bearing upon the back the names of Oliver S. Hasty, Ezra B. Seavey and James M. Burbank, payable to the plaintiff or order in three months from date.
    Oliver S. Hasty denied the genuineness of his signature, which was the sole issue in the case. James E. Hasty, who had the-money for which the note was given, having become insolvent and left the State, the contest was, in reality, between Oliver S. Hasty and the other defendants, as to whether Oliver should contribute to the payment of this note, made for James’ accommodation. To the admission of the testimony recited in the opinion this defendant (Oliver S. Hasty) excepted.
    
      S'. K. <& B. F. Hamilton and Edwin B. Smith, for the defendant.
    
      Ira T. Drew and Edward Eastman, for the plaintiff.
   Virgin, J.

Assumpsit on a promissory note dated May 12, 1869, bearing the names of the defendants, as makers, payable to the plaintiff in the sum of $215. None of the defendants set up any defence to the action except Oliver S. Hasty who denied his signature in accordance with rule x of court. James M. Burbank, called by the plaintiff, was permitted to testify against the seasonable objection of Oliver S. Hasty, that James E. Hasty brought the note to the witness with the other names then upon it, and wished witness to sign it; that witness looked at the note and suggested to James that he had better get some of his neighbors; that James then said his brother (Oliver) and Seavey had signed it; that witness turned over the note and saw their names; that witness then said he knew nothing about Seavey, whereupon James replied, “you know my brother, well,” and witness assented, adding, that he knew him to be a man of property; that James then said Seavey was worth as much as he.

Held, that the declarations of James to the witness were not admissible evidence against Oliver S. Hasty; and tlie ruling of tlie presiding justice admitting them being erroneous, the exceptions are therefore sustained and a new trial granted.

Appleton, O. J., Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Dan-forth, JJ., concurred.  