Bacon v. Robinson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit on the following note: “ On reckoning with F. A. Brooks this day of accounts, after deducting for five cows and one horse he had of me, there is due F. A. Brooks as executor of A. Brooks, Jr., five hundred and twenty three dollars and forty four cents, payable to himself or order on demand, with interest. This is given in exchange for memorandum to him of February 7, 1846, of $690.57. July 23, 1847. Joseph Robinson.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on the following note: “ On reckoning with F. A. Brooks this day of accounts, after deducting for five cows and one horse he had of me, there is due F. A. Brooks as executor of A. Brooks, Jr., five hundred and twenty three dollars and forty four cents, payable to himself or order on demand, with interest. This is given in exchange for memorandum to him of February 7, 1846, of $690.57. July 23, 1847. Joseph Robinson.” This note was indorsed in blank by F. A. Brooks. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Hoar, J., the defence relied on was, that the…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
The defendant, in support of these exceptions, relies on two propositions; first, that if the action on the note in suit had been brought by the promisee, the defendant would have been a competent witness, by virtue of the Rev. Sts. c. 35, § 4; and secondly, that as the action is brought by the indorsee of a note payable on demand, the defendant is a competent witness, by virtue of Sts. 1839, c. 121, and 1845 c. 68.
We have not considered the second proposition; because *580we are of opinion that the first, on which it depends, cannot be maintained.
The Rev. Sts. c. 35, § 4, provide that “ in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Putnam v. ChurchillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Erick v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810