Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Gray

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1874PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On report. Assumpsit upon a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff for $190, dated August 17, 1872. A brief statement was pleaded with the general issue, admitting the signature to the note, but saying that it was without any valid legal consideration; that, at the time of its execution, Mrs. Gray was in a feeble and impaired condition of body and mind, and was mentally incompetent to transact business with intelligence, understanding rationally what she was doing; and…

Read the full summary

On report. Assumpsit upon a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff for $190, dated August 17, 1872. A brief statement was pleaded with the general issue, admitting the signature to the note, but saying that it was without any valid legal consideration; that, at the time of its execution, Mrs. Gray was in a feeble and impaired condition of body and mind, and was mentally incompetent to transact business with intelligence, understanding rationally what she was doing; and that the plaintiff procured her signature by-artifice, deception and fraud. The note was given to take up one of her…

1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.

The promissory note of a married woman given for the antecedent debt of her husband is not void for want of consideration if it is made payable at a future day. Such a note necessarily operates as a suspension of the right of the creditor to enforce payment of his debt till the note matures; and it is a rule of law too well settled to require the citation of authorities in support of it, that such a suspension of the right of the creditor to enforce payment of his debt is a sufficient consideration for the promise of a third person to pay it. It is not necessary that there should be an…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Waters v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
  2. Zimbelman v. FinneganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
  3. Harris v. HarrisIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Isgrig v. Franklin National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913
  5. D. M. Osborne & Co. v. DohertySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API