Boardman v. Gore
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit against the said Gore and Joseph D. Grafton, upon a promissory note purporting to be made by the said Gore 8f Grafton, payable to Thomas Cushing, or order, in four months from the date, with grace, dated the 18th of November, 1816, for the sum of 1085 dollars 78 cents, and to have been endorsed by said Cushing in blank. The declaration contained several counts on the note, ana also the general money counts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the said Gore and Joseph D. Grafton, upon a promissory note purporting to be made by the said Gore 8f Grafton, payable to Thomas Cushing, or order, in four months from the date, with grace, dated the 18th of November, 1816, for the sum of 1085 dollars 78 cents, and to have been endorsed by said Cushing in blank. The declaration contained several counts on the note, ana also the general money counts. It was agreed by the parties that the said Gore fy Grafton were the» partners in trade as shopkeepers, doing business in Boston under the firm of Gore 8f Grafton, and that Thomas…
1Opinion of the Court
* Parker, C. J.
The first objection to a recovery by the plaintiff, and the one upon which the principal reliance seemed to be placed at the argument, is that the act of Grafton, in endorsing Cushing’s name upon the note, was a forgery by him; and that no civil action can arise out of a forgery, or be founded on a criminal transaction, in which the party sued was the agent.
The authorities cited to show that such is the common law of England are not very decisive on the subject. It is said, arguendo, by several of the judges, in delivering their opinions before the House of Lords in the famous…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Robinson v. SkipworthIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
- Phipps v. LittleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913