Athol Machine Co. v. Fuller
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note signed by the defendant under date of March 7,1870, and payable to the plaintiffs or their order, on demand.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note signed by the defendant under date of March 7,1870, and payable to the plaintiffs or their order, on demand. The answer alleged “ that at the time of the execution of the note in suit and at the present time the defendant was and is a married woman living with her husband, Joseph FT, Fuller, and that the note in suit was not given by her in relation to any sole and separate property of which she may be possessed, wherefore she does not owe the plaintiffs the amount thereof.” The case was submitted to the judgment of the court on the following statement of facts:…
1Opinion of the CourtMobtoft, J.
The consideration of the note in suit was a debt due by the defendant’s husband to the plaintiffs, for which she was not liable. The fact that a previous note, signed by her and her husband, of which this note was á renewal, had been given *439does not affect the case. We must look to the original consideration, to see if this note was a contract in reference to her separate property within the meaning of the statute. Gen. Sts. c. 108, § 3. The facts present a case where she was a mere surety for her husband, without any consideration received by her, or any benefit to her separate estate. Such a…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Vogel v. LeichnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Orr v. WhiteIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Heburn v. WarnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Faucett v. CurrierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Vantilburg v. BlackMontana Supreme Court · 1880
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.