Smith v. Whiting
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Case, “ for that the said Aaron, at, &e., on, &c., by his note under his hand of that date, for value received in a debt due to the estate of Ephraim Pollard, deceased, promised John Hartwell and Mary Pollard, executors of the last will of said Ephraim.
Read the full summary
Case, “ for that the said Aaron, at, &e., on, &c., by his note under his hand of that date, for value received in a debt due to the estate of Ephraim Pollard, deceased, promised John Hartwell and Mary Pollard, executors of the last will of said Ephraim. Pollard, to pay them 566 dollars 22 cents in one year from date, with interest; and the said John, who acted as executor as aforesaid, afterwards, on, &c., at, &.C., by his endorsement on said note, under his hand, for value received, ordered the contents thereof, then due and unpaid, to be paid to the plaintiff; of all which the said Aaron…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
observed that, having to ked into the cases cited in the argument, they were satisfied that the defendant must prevail. The question is, whether one of two executors is competent to transfer, by endorsement, a negotiable promissory note made to the two in their character of executors. The promisees, not being copartners, had each but a moiety. One, therefore, could not assign the whole. Nor was it competent for him to assign his moiety, (a)
Declaration adjudged had
[Mangram vs Sirurus, 1 Car L. R. 547. — Ed.]
2Cited by13 opinions
- Skinner v. Bedell's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Clark v. GramlingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Dewey v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Gayle v. EnnisTexas Supreme Court · 1846
- Allen v. Corn Exchange BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.