Chapman v. Kellogg
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note made by the defendant April 6,1866, under her maiden name of Caroline M. Fisk, for $200 payable on demand to the order of the plaintiff. Writ dated January 14, 1868. The answer admitted the making of the note, and alleged that the defendant afterwards married Nathaniel Kellogg, who was still living, and that he paid the note.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note made by the defendant April 6,1866, under her maiden name of Caroline M. Fisk, for $200 payable on demand to the order of the plaintiff. Writ dated January 14, 1868. The answer admitted the making of the note, and alleged that the defendant afterwards married Nathaniel Kellogg, who was still living, and that he paid the note. At the trial in the superior court, before Vbse, J., there was evidence that the defendant married Nathaniel Kellogg in July 1866, and lived with him until January 1, 1867, when he left her, and that he was still living but never afterwards…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The note in' suit was originally valid, having been given to the plaintiff by the defendant while she was sole. When she married Kellogg, it remained valid against her; but under our present statute her husband did not become liable to pay it. Gen. Sts.' c. 108, § 8.
According to the plaintiff’s testimony, he sold it to her husband, and indorsed it to him, and thus the husband acquired the legal as well as the equitable title to it. The agreement, that the plaintiff should take it back in case of any difficulty between the defendant and her husband, did not prevent the title from vesting…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Rogers v. WolfeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Butler v. IvesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Fowle v. TorreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Roby v. PhelonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Bassett v. BassettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.