Coolidge v. Ruggles
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on the following writing, viz.: — “ Boston, October 1, 1812. “ For value received, I promise to pay the bearer hereof, six months after date, nine hundred and eighty dollars, provided the ship Mary arrives at a European port of discharge, free from capture and condemnation by the British. “ Samuel Ruggles.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on the following writing, viz.: — “ Boston, October 1, 1812. “ For value received, I promise to pay the bearer hereof, six months after date, nine hundred and eighty dollars, provided the ship Mary arrives at a European port of discharge, free from capture and condemnation by the British. “ Samuel Ruggles.” At the trial before Jackson, J.., at the sittings here, after the last March term, it appeared that the said promise was made to one W. S. Skinner, the consideration whereof was a certain document, known by the name of “ a Sawyer license,” which was intended for the protection of…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The only question to which we have turned our attention in this case, is, whether the written promise declared on is negotiable * in its nature, so that an action may be maintained upon it in the name of the plaintiff, who is assignee. And we are all of opinion that it is not so negotiable, on account of the contingency on which the payment of the money is made to depend.
All promises to pay money, being at common law dioses in action, were unassignable. It is only by virtue of the statute of 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9, that certain descriptions of them are assignable, so as that the property and the…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Carnwright v. . GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Mowry v. ToddMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Blackman v. Lehman, Durr & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Salmon v. The SerapisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1889
- Hall v. Farmer & DoolittleNew York Supreme Court · 1848
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.