Hapgood v. Watson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report Assumpsit on a promissory note of the tenor following: “$4436.89. For value received we promise to pay S. W. Hap-good or order, forty-four hundred and thirty-six dollars and eighty-nine cents on demand and interest.
Read the full summary
On report Assumpsit on a promissory note of the tenor following: “$4436.89. For value received we promise to pay S. W. Hap-good or order, forty-four hundred and thirty-six dollars and eighty-nine cents on demand and interest. North Anson, August 31, 1861. (Signed,) John Watson, jr., & Co.” There were indorsements of interest $673.36 to date, (September 1, 1862,). and twenty-four [hundred] and sixty-three dollars, and 44-100, January 31, 1863. Also an indorsement in blank: “S. W. Hapgood.” The writ was dated March 24, 1873. Declaration. “In a plea of the case : for that the said defend- • ant…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
We think the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this case.
I. The fact that the note declared on was made payable to one *513of the members of the firm by whom it was signed, is no objection to a recovery. Such a note is valid in the hands of an indorsee, and a suit thereon may be maintained by him precisely as if the note had originally been made payable to some one not a member of the firm. Davis v. Briggs, 39 Maine, 304. Pitcher v. Barrows, 17 Pick., 361. Thayer v. Buffum, 11 Metc., 398.
II. Nor does the fact that the note is declared on as the promise of the defendant alone, preclude a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barry v. FoylesSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- Morgan v. BrachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908