Fuller v. Lumbert
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts are stated in the opinion. This action is properly brought in the name of Fuller. Shenoood v. Boys, 14 Pick. 172. Uneancelled endorsement no objection. Thornton v. Moody, 11 Maine, 253. Not necessary that plaintiff should have any beneficial interest in the note. Demuth v. Gutter, 50 Maine, 298 ; Whitcomb v. Smart, 38 Maine, 264; Eat.
Read the full summary
On report. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts are stated in the opinion. This action is properly brought in the name of Fuller. Shenoood v. Boys, 14 Pick. 172. Uneancelled endorsement no objection. Thornton v. Moody, 11 Maine, 253. Not necessary that plaintiff should have any beneficial interest in the note. Demuth v. Gutter, 50 Maine, 298 ; Whitcomb v. Smart, 38 Maine, 264; Eat. Pemberton Banle v. Porter, 125. Mass. 335. . Consent pending proceedings that the case may go on in his name, is a ratification by plaintiff of the previous proceedings. Lewis v. Hodgdon, 17 Maine, 267 ; Craig…
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
From the evidence we gather the following facts : The defendant, Lumbert, with his wife and child, lived for a while in Chicago. Lumbert afterwards came to Bangor, leaving his wife and child in Chicago. The wife afterwards began proceedings in Chicago for a divorce, and notice thereof was served on Lumbert in Bangor. Pending the proceedings, Lumbert visited Chicago and had some talk with his wife and gave her the notes in suit. The notes were by agreement made payable in form to the nominal plaintiff, but they were given to the wife as her notes. The nominal plaintiff never had any interest…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Romer v. KochNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Lipsmeier v. VehslageU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1886
- Miltenberger v. City of New OrleansLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1884