Hooker v. Hubbard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract by the indorsee against the prior indorser of the following note: “ Springfield, Sept. 10, 1866. Two months after date I promise to paj to the order of Samuel Hubbard $700, value received, at Chicopee National Bank. (Signed) Mrs. M. L. Perry. (Indorsed) Samuel Hubbard, John Hooker.”
Read the full summary
Contract by the indorsee against the prior indorser of the following note: “ Springfield, Sept. 10, 1866. Two months after date I promise to paj to the order of Samuel Hubbard $700, value received, at Chicopee National Bank. (Signed) Mrs. M. L. Perry. (Indorsed) Samuel Hubbard, John Hooker.” At the trial in the superior court, before Wilkinson, J., it was admitted that this note, on maturity, was not paid by the maker, and that the indorsers were duly notified, and the plaintiff took it up before Mrs. Perry went to Hartford as hereafter stated. The defendant introduced evidence tending to…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
We cannot distinguish this case from Dewey v. Bell, 5 Allen, 165. The note of November 14 was given for no other purpose than to renew and pay the one of earlier date now in suit. The plaintiff, knowing this fact, had no right, as against this defendant, to take it except in payment. Having elected to take it and enforce it by suit, the law conclusively presumes that he took it for a rightful and not an illegal and fraudulent purpose, and the plaintiff is estopped from alleging the contrary. It is plain that both notes cannot be enforced rightfully against the present defendant. The plaintiff…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Connihan v. ThompsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Watt v. German Savings BankCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1917
- Henderson v. StanifordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Farley National Bank v. HendersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Wyman v. FabensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.