Holden v. Jenkins
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the defendants as copartners under the firm name of the Barre Boot Company, upon the following promissory note: “Barre, June 26th, 1857. $935. For value, received the Barre Boot Company promise to pay to the order of Rufus B. Holden nine hundred thirty-five dollars on demand with interest annually. “Witness, James Miller, Treas. “Nathan Woods.” for Barre Boot Co. Writ dated June 23, 1877. Answer: 1. A general denial; 2. The statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Contract against the defendants as copartners under the firm name of the Barre Boot Company, upon the following promissory note: “Barre, June 26th, 1857. $935. For value, received the Barre Boot Company promise to pay to the order of Rufus B. Holden nine hundred thirty-five dollars on demand with interest annually. “Witness, James Miller, Treas. “Nathan Woods.” for Barre Boot Co. Writ dated June 23, 1877. Answer: 1. A general denial; 2. The statute of limitations. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., without a jury, the plaintiff produced in evidence the note declared upon,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The signature intended by the St. of 1877, c. 163, is the signature of the party sought to be charged thereby, which creates against such party a cause of action or a ground of defence. The signature of an attesting witness to a promissory note does not, properly speaking, form part of the cause of ao*448tian against the maker. The attestation changes the character of the contract by annexing to it the incident that an action on it will not be barred until the lapse of twenty years. Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 4. It has somewhat the same effect as a seal, giving to the note in some respects the character…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Faulkner v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lowell v. BickfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Bryant v. Abington Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907