Matthews v. Houghton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit upon the following promissory note : “Madison, July 31, 1826. For value received, I promise to pay Jacob Matthews or order, forty-live dollars in grain, at the market price, next January, or forty dollars in two years from next January, and interest. Nathan Houghton.” On which wore the following indorsements, viz: ‘'-July 31, 1826, received nine dollars and fifty cents upon the within note.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon the following promissory note : “Madison, July 31, 1826. For value received, I promise to pay Jacob Matthews or order, forty-live dollars in grain, at the market price, next January, or forty dollars in two years from next January, and interest. Nathan Houghton.” On which wore the following indorsements, viz: ‘'-July 31, 1826, received nine dollars and fifty cents upon the within note.” “March 1,1827, received on the within twelve bushels of wheat, at five shillings per bushel.” It appeared that, on the 29th of March, 1828, said note was assigned by Matthews to W. Preston, for…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
at a subsequent term, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Several questions have been discussed in argument, which we proceed at once to examine and decide.
1. We do not perceive any incorrectness in the ruling of the Judge as to the admission of Mr Tenney as a witness. He is not interested in the event of this suit. He obtained a judgment against the effects of Matthews in the hands of Houghton, who has voluntarily given his note to Tenney for the amount. It does not follow that he would have any defence against the note, if there was any irregularity in the manner in which the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Montgomery v. ViersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Kimpton v. Jubilee Placer Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1899
- Corthell v. MeadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
- Woodward v. PerkinsMontana Supreme Court · 1946
- In re BreckenridgeNevada Supreme Court · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.