Bickford v. Gibbs
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit on the following note : — “ July 26th, 1845. $100. For value received, I promise to pay on demand to Joseph Bickford, or order, one hundred dollars with interest. George May.” On the back of the note was the following agreement, signed by the defendants: “We guaranty the payment of the within, waiving demand and notice.” The writ was dated the 23d of May, 1849; and contained the money counts only.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on the following note : — “ July 26th, 1845. $100. For value received, I promise to pay on demand to Joseph Bickford, or order, one hundred dollars with interest. George May.” On the back of the note was the following agreement, signed by the defendants: “We guaranty the payment of the within, waiving demand and notice.” The writ was dated the 23d of May, 1849; and contained the money counts only. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Byington, J., the plaintiff put in evidence the foregoing note and agreement, and there rested his case. And the…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
Assumpsit to recover the amount of a note given by one May, and guaranteed by the defendants.
An exception is now taken, that this guaranty should have been specially declared on. No such exception was taken at the trial; had it been, an amendment might have been made; the objection comes too late.
*156The exception is also taken, that as the guaranty was a contract collateral to the note, a distinct consideration should be proved. There would be force in this objection, had the guaranty been made after the note had been made, delivered and received as a complete contract. But when the guaranty is…
2Cited by1 opinion
- C. S. Jones & Bro. v. KuhnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885