116 federal reporter �Këystonë Bridge Company v. Britton. �{Circuit Court, S- Z». iVeifl York. January 20, 1880.) �CoNTRACT — liBCEiPT — EVIDENCE. — Where, upon sufflcient consideration, a statement is written across the face of a note by the party signing such statement, to the eiïect that i■uncl^ have lieen placed in his hands, as trustee, for the payraent of such note at maturity, the party so signing becomes personally liable for Ihe payment of the note, although evidence was admissible to prove that the payee of the note knew that such signer aotually had no such funds in his possession at the time lie signed the statement, nor had subseqently received sufficient to pay the note in full at its matur.ty. �Man de Parsons, for plaintiff. �Tracy, Olmstead e Tracy, for defendant. �Wheelee, J. The orator built a bridge across the Missis- sippi river, at St. Louis, for the Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Company, in which the defendant was interested, and of which he was treasurer. After the bridge was completed, but while it was still in the possession of the orator, the Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Company executed its promissory note for $51,510.95, payable in ten months after date, to its own order, at the Bank of Commerce, in New York. Although the de- fendant at that time had not funds in his hands, as trustee or otherwise, for the payment of the note, which the orator knew, it was arranged between him and the Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Company that he should receive the tolls of the bridge for that purpose, which they thought would be suffi- cient to pay it, and a statement written across the face o£ the nolj in these words, "Funds for the payment of this note at maturity have been placed in my hands, as trustee," was signed by the defendant to induce the orator to aceept the note and deliver up the bridge. The note was indorsed by the Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Company, aiid delivered to tlm orator. The note was equal in amount to the balance due the orator for building the bridge. The orator took the note and delivered up the bridge, and the defendant received the tolls of the bridge. AU tolls received by the defendant have been applied to the payment of the note, but they were not ��� �
