Nichols v. Frothingham
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit upon, a writing declared on as a promissory note, which is as follows: — “ $1500. Boston, May 1, 1854. “Six after date, we promise to pay to the order of L. Monson, president of the Metropolitan Eire and Marine Insurance Company, of Boston, fifteen. hundred dollars at Merchant’s Bank, Boston. Value received. “ Erothingham & Workman.” On the back .of. the note was this indorsement, “ Metropolitan E. & M. Ins. Co., by L. Monson, President.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon, a writing declared on as a promissory note, which is as follows: — “ $1500. Boston, May 1, 1854. “Six after date, we promise to pay to the order of L. Monson, president of the Metropolitan Eire and Marine Insurance Company, of Boston, fifteen. hundred dollars at Merchant’s Bank, Boston. Value received. “ Erothingham & Workman.” On the back .of. the note was this indorsement, “ Metropolitan E. & M. Ins. Co., by L. Monson, President.” The writ contains several counts; the first count is on a note payable to L. Monson, or his order, (and by him indorsed,) payable in six, (meaning…
1Opinion of the Court
*225The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
May, J.
The right of the plaintiff to recover in this action is resisted upon several grounds. And, first, it is said that the note declared on is void for uncertainty. It is in these words:—
“$1500. Boston, May 1, 1854.
“Six after date, we promise to pay, to the order of L. Monson, president of the Metropolitan Fire and Marine Insurance Company of Boston, fifteen hundred dollars, at Merchants’ Bank, Boston. Yalue received.
(Signed,) “Frothingham & Workman.
The only obscurity in the note arises from the want of a definite statement of the time when payable.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Boykin v. Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Weaver v. HendersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- McCarthy v. Krebs Pigment & Chemical Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1922
- Weems v. ParkerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895