Flint v. Flint
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon the following promissory note: “ $381. Reading, Apr. 28,1836. For value received, I promise to pay Sarah Flint or order the sum of three hundred and eighty-one dollars on demand with interest till paid. Sewall Flint. Abram Tapley, witness.” The note bore the following indorsements: “ North Reading, Nov. 1855. For value received, pay one half of the within note to Sarah Flint, and the other half to Esther Bodge. Sarah Flint, her x mark. Witness, Joseph Cook.
Read the full summary
Contract upon the following promissory note: “ $381. Reading, Apr. 28,1836. For value received, I promise to pay Sarah Flint or order the sum of three hundred and eighty-one dollars on demand with interest till paid. Sewall Flint. Abram Tapley, witness.” The note bore the following indorsements: “ North Reading, Nov. 1855. For value received, pay one half of the within note to Sarah Flint, and the other half to Esther Bodge. Sarah Flint, her x mark. Witness, Joseph Cook. Received one year’s interest. Interest paid up to April 28, 1838. Received one year’s interest. Received one year’s…
1Opinion of the CourtDewey, J.
1. This action was properly instituted in the names of the present plaintiffs, the indorsement of the entire note being made to the two indorsees, and the claim as respects the maker not being divisible into two separate causes of action. The delivery to one of the indorsees, and a suit instituted and carried on for the benefit of both, with their concurrence, show a sufficient acceptance of the transfer to them. By these acts, they became legal parties to the note, and are entitled to enforce the payment of any sum due thereon, and as to which no defence existed as against the payee at the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Horvitz v. St. John the Baptist Church Corp.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1998
- Mayor of Jersey City v. New York Bay R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1926