Hungerford National Bank v. Nostrand
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contbact by the Hungerford National Bank, alleged in the writ to be “ a corporation duly established by law at Adams in the state of New York,” on two promissory notes signed by the defendants, each “ payable at Hungerford National Bank, Adams,” to the order of Rufus P. White, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The answer denied all the allegations of the declaration.
Read the full summary
Contbact by the Hungerford National Bank, alleged in the writ to be “ a corporation duly established by law at Adams in the state of New York,” on two promissory notes signed by the defendants, each “ payable at Hungerford National Bank, Adams,” to the order of Rufus P. White, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The answer denied all the allegations of the declaration. At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., the signatures of the defendants and of White on the notes were admitted, and there was some evidence, which it is unnecessary to state in detail, that the plaintiffs were…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
The answer put the plaintiff to the proof of every fact necessary to the maintenance of the action. One fact to be proved was the organization or corporate existence of the plaintiff. There was some evidence upon that point, but it was not conclusive, so as to enable the court to determine it as a matter of law. The notes were not made payable to the bank as a party. The bank is mentioned only as the place of payment. That does not necessarily indicate a corporation established under that name.
In ordering a verdict for the plaintiff, the court, no doubt inadvertently, overlooked this question…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bahmann & Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Goodwin Invalid Bedstead Co. v. DarlingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882