Tuckerman v. Newhall
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note of the following tenor, viz., “ Boston, Dec. 23, 1818. Value received, we, Joel and Isaac New-hall as principals, and Cheever Newhall as surety, jointly and severally promise to pay Tuckerman, Rogers, and Cushing, or order, two hundred and fifty dollars. ^ in fifteen months. (Signed) J. I. Newhall, Cheever Newhall.” The defendant, besides the general issue which was joined, pleaded two special pleas in bar.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note of the following tenor, viz., “ Boston, Dec. 23, 1818. Value received, we, Joel and Isaac New-hall as principals, and Cheever Newhall as surety, jointly and severally promise to pay Tuckerman, Rogers, and Cushing, or order, two hundred and fifty dollars. ^ in fifteen months. (Signed) J. I. Newhall, Cheever Newhall.” The defendant, besides the general issue which was joined, pleaded two special pleas in bar. The first plea in bar alleges that, after the making of the note, an indenture of three parts was entered into by the said J. &/■ I. New-hall, who were…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
We are all of opinion that the replication to the second plea in bar is bad, because, if the plea was good in defence against a joint note, it is equally so against a joint and several note ; there being no distinction between those contracts, in relation to a release or discharge. It is so laid down in the authorities cited for the defendant, and nothing has been produced to the contrary by the counsel for the plaintiff. But the plea is also bad, it not showing an actual release, nor an accord and satisfaction; for it is not shown that any thing was received by the plaintiffs, in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hale v. SpauldingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Hochmark v. RichlerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891
- North Pacific Mortgage Co. v. KrewsonWashington Supreme Court · 1924
- Collier v. FieldMontana Supreme Court · 1872
- Davies v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900