Charles River National Bank v. Davis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover the amount of a check on the National Hide & Leather Bank, signed by the defendant and dated February 13, 1867, which the bank refused to pay on demand, and the defendant also refused to pay, although requested after due notice given to him of the refusal of the bank.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover the amount of a check on the National Hide & Leather Bank, signed by the defendant and dated February 13, 1867, which the bank refused to pay on demand, and the defendant also refused to pay, although requested after due notice given to him of the refusal of the bank. At the trial in the superior court, before Ames, C. J., no question was made as to these demands and refusals, and these facts appeared in evidence: On February 8, 1867, the defendant, who was a banker in Boston, received from Absalom Fiske a check, bearing that date, and purporting to be drawn by Nioodemus…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The surrender of the forged check, on which the defendant had received the money, was a sufficient consideration for giving the one now in suit. The question whether the present one, which was filled out over the defendant’s blank signature by one of his clerks, was binding upon him, was submitted to the jury at the trial, upon full, appropriate and exactly accurate instructions. “ If the defendant understood the transaction, saw the new check, knew the use that was to be made of it, and that the plaintiffs received it as payment of or in exchange for the check said to be a forgery, and if he…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lankofsky v. RaymondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914