Barnes v. Smith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon two promissory notes, dated December 4,1891, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The answer was a general denial. The amended answer set forth that, if the defendant “ made the notes mentioned in plaintiff’s declaration, the considerations for the same are illegal and void.
Read the full summary
Contract upon two promissory notes, dated December 4,1891, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The answer was a general denial. The amended answer set forth that, if the defendant “ made the notes mentioned in plaintiff’s declaration, the considerations for the same are illegal and void. And the defendant says the plaintiff is a broker engaged in the sale and purchase of stocks on margin, so-called; and defendant says that he bought certain stocks on margin from the plaintiff; that the notes mentioned in plaintiff’s declaration were given by the defendant to the plaintiff in payment of…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
We are not certain that we correctly understand the grounds of defence set up in the amended answer, but it does not appear that the direction of the presiding justice to return a verdict for the plaintiff rested on the ground of variance between the answer and the evidence. Kennedy v. Owen, 131 Mass. 431. The only question, therefore, which we have considered, is whether the evidence of the defendant was sufficient to entitle him under proper pleadings to go to the jury.
There is a great difficulty in understanding the defendant’s case, because to a large extent the defendant’s counsel and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harvey v. MerrillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Roundtree v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Kennedy v. OwenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brightman v. BatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- John Miller Co. v. KlovstadNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. CurreySupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Winward v. LincolnSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1902
- Savoy Finance Co. v. De BiaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.