Sanger v. Cleveland
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant to the said Sarah, dated August 24, 1809, for 343 dollars 75 cents, payable, with interest, on the 1st of April, 1812. The cause was tried before Parker, J., at the sittings here afte the last October term, and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs for 206 dollars 46 cents, subiect to an agreement, on the part of the defendant, that the verdict might be altered by the Court, as their opinion should be upon the following…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant to the said Sarah, dated August 24, 1809, for 343 dollars 75 cents, payable, with interest, on the 1st of April, 1812. The cause was tried before Parker, J., at the sittings here afte the last October term, and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs for 206 dollars 46 cents, subiect to an agreement, on the part of the defendant, that the verdict might be altered by the Court, as their opinion should be upon the following facts: — The defendant admits the signature of the note, but alleges, as to 200 dollars, part of the sum therein mentioned,…
1Opinion of the Court
* Sewall, J.,
pronounced the judgment of the Court. [ *417 ] The defence set up in this action, upon a promissory note given by the defendant to Sarah Sanger, one of the plaintiffs, is a want of consideration, or rather a failure in part of the consideration of the note; which the defendant contends is to be reduced, as to the damages recoverable in the action maintained upon it, to the sum actually due and understood in the bargain between these parties. The defendant says this was a purchase of real estate, conveyed to him by the brother of the payee, one of the plaintiffs in this action, at her…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cook v. MixSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Freligh v. PlattNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Lattin v. VailNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Barnet v. OffermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Hansford v. MillsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nahinai v. LaiHawaii Supreme Court · 1871
- Elminger v. DrewU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan · 1848