Foster v. Shattuck
Superior Court of New Hampshire
A note payable to M. F. or enter, cannot be sued in the name of an endorsee, unless negotiated by the same M. F., who was intended to be the payee. Whore no particular person of that name was intended to be the payee, or had any interest in the note, the name of the payee is to be regarded as fictitious.
Read the full summary
A note payable to M. F. or enter, cannot be sued in the name of an endorsee, unless negotiated by the same M. F., who was intended to be the payee. Whore no particular person of that name was intended to be the payee, or had any interest in the note, the name of the payee is to be regarded as fictitious. In such case, where money passed between the parties to the action, a recovery may be had on the money counts ; and when it did not pass between them, a recovery can be had on a count, alleging the note to be made payable to bearer. This was assumpsit on a promissory note, made by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Woodbury, !.
The counsel-in this case have exhibited different statements of the evidence and the verdict; but our remarks, v ill be predicated on the cause as above detailed from our own minutes.
From these it appears, that though the whole ini crest of this note ever has been in the plaintiff, yet it was made payable to Moses Foster, or order. Hence he must claim through some person of that name, who was intended as the payee, if any particular person was so intended. But the jury having found, that no person in particular of that name was intended as, payee, no person was authorized to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Banco Popular de PuertoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1965
- Winkie, Inc. v. Heritage Bank of Whitefish BayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Elliot v. AbbotSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Banco PopularSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1965