Legal Opinion

Cameron Surgical Specialty Co. v. Tynan

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided August 27, 1937Published

1Opinion of the CourtEstes, J.

This action is founded on an agreement alleged to be a promissory note. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations.

*509The instrument declared on was as follows:

“$139.00 6-28-29

CAMERON’S SURGICAL SPECIALTY 00., 666 W.

Division St., Chicago, U. S. A.

Please ship as soon as convenient, subject to strikes, accidents, or other delays beyond your control, the following.........................................

1 complete # 79 Oto Diognostoset Minus.......... .. .Oralite... .plus tonsilassistant...................■

To James J. Tynan... .hereinafter called the vendee, at ■ Torrington, Conn. Said…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Porter v. HarringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  2. Sloan v. McCartyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  3. Central National Bank v. HubbelMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  4. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Manufacturing Corp. v. Daniel Russell Boiler Works, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  5. Lincoln Park Garage v. Devonshire Financial Service Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API