Beekman v. Wilson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on the following note: “ Lee, October 9th 1841. Ninety days after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of John Baker five hundred dollars, at the Kinder-hook Bank. George Wilson.” The note was indorsed in blank by said Baker and by M. D. Field. The plaintiff described himself as “president of the Kinderhook Bank.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on the following note: “ Lee, October 9th 1841. Ninety days after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of John Baker five hundred dollars, at the Kinder-hook Bank. George Wilson.” The note was indorsed in blank by said Baker and by M. D. Field. The plaintiff described himself as “president of the Kinderhook Bank.” The defendant pleaded the general issue, and relied on a discharge under the United States bankrupt act of 1841. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Washburn, J. the defendant objected to the maintenance of this action in the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered at September term 1846.
Dewey, J.
It is no sufficient objection to maintaining this action, that the plaintiff on the record is not the party beneficially interested, and, as such, entitled to retain the avails of the judgment for his personal benefit. That privity of contract, which is required in the action of assumpsit, is sufficiently shown in the case of a negotiable note payable to the *437order of the promisee and indorsed by him in blank, when an action is instituted in the name of the holder of such note, who came into the possession of it with the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dean v. HewitNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Gage v. KendallNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Little v. ObrienMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Brereton v. HullCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845