Dyer v. Busnham
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit by the plaintiff, as indorsee, against Daniel Burn-ham and David Webster, as makers of a note given by them to Ovid Burrall, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff, “ without recourse,” dated Oct. 10, 1845, for $2,580, payable in one year, with interest, at any bank in Portland. The same de-fence was to be open, that would exist if the suit was brought by Burrall. Webster was defaulted. Burnham defended.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the plaintiff, as indorsee, against Daniel Burn-ham and David Webster, as makers of a note given by them to Ovid Burrall, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff, “ without recourse,” dated Oct. 10, 1845, for $2,580, payable in one year, with interest, at any bank in Portland. The same de-fence was to be open, that would exist if the suit was brought by Burrall. Webster was defaulted. Burnham defended. The plaintiff read the note to the jury, the signatures having been admitted to be genuine. In defence, the counsel for Burnham read the depositions of Ovid Burrall, Stephen J. Bowles…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
TenNey J.'
On the 15th day of August, 1835, John Black, agent for the divisees in trust of the estate of William Bing-ham, as such agent, contracted in writing, not under seal, to deliver to Stephen J. Bowles and Ovid Burrall, their heirs and assigns, a deed in fee, with warranty against the demands of all persons claiming under the said William Bingham, of a certain parcel of land in the County of Washington, on condition that payment should be made of five notes of hand given by said Bowles and Burrall, of the same date, for $6,192 each, payable in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Alexander v. Bank of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852