Bulkley v. Chapman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery against Isaac Chapman and Abner JHendee, administrator of the estate of David Deming, deceased, seeking such relief as in equity and justice was due to the plaintiff. Deming, as the surety of Chapman, indorsed three promissory notes of his, payable at the Middletown Bank. Chapman, at the same time, gave Deming a mortgage of land, as collateral security for his indorsements.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery against Isaac Chapman and Abner JHendee, administrator of the estate of David Deming, deceased, seeking such relief as in equity and justice was due to the plaintiff. Deming, as the surety of Chapman, indorsed three promissory notes of his, payable at the Middletown Bank. Chapman, at the same time, gave Deming a mortgage of land, as collateral security for his indorsements. These notes Deming was called upon to pay ; and he paid them, by giving his own notes, indorsed, for his accommodation, by the plaintiff, payable at the same bank. Deming failed to pay the last…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The great question in the case, is, whether the notes of Chapman were assigned to the plaintiff.
By a recurrence to the words of the assignment, the subject matter and the situation of the parties, their intention will be ascertained ; and where this is found, their agreement appears of course. Sumner, admr. v. Williams, 8 Mass. Rep. 214. Fowle v. Bigelow, 10 Mass. Rep. 370. Hopkins v. Young, II Mass. Rep. 302. Brewer v. Knapp & al. 1 Pick. 332. It is a law maxim, Verba intentioni debent inscrvirc. If the ordinary meaning of words render a contract frivolous or ineffective, a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RoarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1851
- Welder v. DunnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884
- Lawrence v. KnapSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1791
3Cited by2 opinions
- Plant v. HarrisonNew York Supreme Court · 1902
- Cook v. MixSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836