Way v. Batchelder
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note for $26, dated September 13, 1878, signed by the defendant and payable in four weeks after date to the order of the plaintiff. Writ dated October 12, 1878. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., the plaintiff put in the note, and rested his case.
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note for $26, dated September 13, 1878, signed by the defendant and payable in four weeks after date to the order of the plaintiff. Writ dated October 12, 1878. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., the plaintiff put in the note, and rested his case. The note exhibited at the trial corresponded with the copy in the declaration, except that there was a memorandum at the bottom of the note at the left of the signature, as follows: “ Due Oct. 12, Oct. 11,” in ink. The defendant requested the judge to nonsuit the plaintiff for the variance between the…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
It is true that if the parties to a written instrument see fit to add to it a memorandum containing words which qualify or restrain its operation, those words become a part of the contract. Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165. Thus it was held in Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228, that a note purporting on its face to be payable on demand was changed into a note payable in one year, by the addition of a memorandum below the promisor’s signature, by consent of parties, and before the delivery of the note.
The defendant says that the memorandum which was added to this note was originally written “…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Danforth v. StermanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- E. E. Rivet & Sons v. DurandSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1932