Gay v. Rooke
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on the following instrument, declared on as a promissory note: “ Marlboro’, Sept. 23, 1881. I. O. U., E. A. Gay, the sum of seventeen dolls. for value received. John E. Eooke.” Writ dated September 19, 1887. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Dewey, J., the only issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest from the date of the instrument, or from that of the writ, the service of which was the only demand made by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Contract on the following instrument, declared on as a promissory note: “ Marlboro’, Sept. 23, 1881. I. O. U., E. A. Gay, the sum of seventeen dolls. for value received. John E. Eooke.” Writ dated September 19, 1887. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Dewey, J., the only issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest from the date of the instrument, or from that of the writ, the service of which was the only demand made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the judge to rule, as matter of law, that he was entitled to interest from the date of the instrument.…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
In order to constitute a good promissory note there should be an express promise on the face of the instrument to pay the money. A mere promise implied by law, founded on an acknowledged indebtedness, will not be sufficient. Story, Prom. Notes, § 14. Brown v. Gilman, 13 Mass. 158. While such promise need not be expressed in any particular form of words, the language used must be such that the written undertaking to pay may fairly be deduced therefrom. Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Whitney, 1 Met. 21. In this view *116the instrument sued on cannot be considered a promissory note. It is an…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Webber v. WebberCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Brown v. GilmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Brenzer v. WightmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Daggett v. DaggettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Currier v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Howland v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Gould v. EmersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Horn v. HansenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Central National Bank v. HubbelMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Simpson v. Henry N. Clark Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.