Legal Opinion

Third National Bank v. Ashworth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 15, 1870PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Contract on a promissory note, against William Ashworth as maker, and Benjamin E. Sargent as indorser. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that no due presentment of the note, notice of default, or protest, was ever made.

Read the full summary

Contract on a promissory note, against William Ashworth as maker, and Benjamin E. Sargent as indorser. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that no due presentment of the note, notice of default, or protest, was ever made. The plaintiffs relied on a waiver of demand and notice by Sargent, and offered evidence tending to show that after such omission he said to the plaintiffs’ messenger that he was glad that no protest had been made, for it would only have caused additional expense, and expressly promised to pay the note. Sargent testified to the contrary, and…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

The evidence offered was properly excluded, and the instructions given to the jury were correct. Matthews v. Allen, 16 Gray, 594. Harrison v. Bailey, 99 Mass. 620.

Exceptions overruled.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Harrison v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Toole v. CraftsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  2. Glidden v. ChamberlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  3. Thompson v. CurryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Parks v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
  5. Carmen v. HigginsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API