Belcher v. Smith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, bearing date of January 16,1850, and payable to the defendant or his order, on demand. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Hoar, J., the following facts appeared: The defendant on the 3d of February, 1850, transferred this note to Field & Leland, in payment of a debt, and wrote his name on the back of the note, with these words over it: “ I hereby guaranty the within note.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, bearing date of January 16,1850, and payable to the defendant or his order, on demand. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Hoar, J., the following facts appeared: The defendant on the 3d of February, 1850, transferred this note to Field & Leland, in payment of a debt, and wrote his name on the back of the note, with these words over it: “ I hereby guaranty the within note.” Field & Leland subsequently transferred the note to the plaintiff, and indorsed upon it, over their signature, these words: “ For value received pay to…
1Opinion of the CourtDewey, J.
The question raised in the present case, of the right of the plaintiff to maintain an action as indorsee of the promissory note sued upon, war fully considered by us and settled in the recent case of Tuttle v. Bartholomew, 12 Met. 452. Upon a review of the question, and comparison of the conflicting decisions and grounds upon which they were *483placed, the court were of opinion that where the name of the payee of the note was indorsed on the back of the note in no other form than as a signature to a guaranty fully written out and expressed, leaving nothing for implication, this was not such an…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Calloway v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1882