Parker v. Lovejoy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of the case brought by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker, who offered his endorser, the payee of the note, as a witness to prove that the note was made on a usurious contract. The Court, on a full consideration of the cases of Walton vs. Shelly, 1 Term R. 296, and of Buckland vs. Tankard, 5 Term R. 578, ruled that the endorser could not be admitted as a witness to prove the note usurious, it being to destroy his own contract.
1Opinion of the Court
Since the case of Paul vs. Frazier [ante, page 71] was printed, the Reporter has been furnished, by the counsel for the plaintiff, with a copy of the record of the case of Susanna Holding vs. Joseph Bright, decided in the Superior Court, Middlesex, January term, 1730.
The declaration was similar to that in Paul vs. Frazier, and at the inferior court the defendant recovered his costs. But upon the appeal, it was considered by the Court [viz. Lynde, C. J., and Davenport, Dudley, Quincy, and Gushing, * justices] [ * 566 ] that the writ was good, and well brought, that the judgment of the inferior…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Inhabitants of Worcester v. EatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Churchill v. SuterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Thunder Studios, Inc. v. Charif KazalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- Packard v. RichardsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- M'Mechan v. GriffingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.