Legal Opinion
Lawless v. Temple
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 7, 1926PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, J.
This is an action by the payee of a bill of exchange against the drawee. The bill is as follows:
“Natick, Sept. 24, 1923.
Maurice E. Temple
Please pay to the order of Hazel Lawliss $351.50/100 three hundred and fifty one dollars & 50/100
Norris J. Temple
Maurice E. Temple”
The answer raised the question of the sufficiency of the acceptance under G. L. c. 107, § 155, which is as follows: *396"The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer. The acceptance must be in writing and signed by the drawee. It must not express that the drawee will perform his…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Storer v. LoganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Levy & Cohn Mule Co. v. KauffmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1902
- Selma Savings Bank v. Webster County BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Walker v. Bank of New-YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Bacon v. BatesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1955