Carley v. Vance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The plaintiff declares in assumpsit, “ For that the said TV. V., at, &c., on the 5th of November, 1810, by his note of hand of that date, by him subscribed, for value received, promised the plaintiff to pay him, at Mr. E. L.’s counting-room in Cross Street, Boston, 150 dollars with interest, on or before the last day of June then next; yet though often requested since the said last day of June, the said TV. V. hath never paid,” &c.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff declares in assumpsit, “ For that the said TV. V., at, &c., on the 5th of November, 1810, by his note of hand of that date, by him subscribed, for value received, promised the plaintiff to pay him, at Mr. E. L.’s counting-room in Cross Street, Boston, 150 dollars with interest, on or before the last day of June then next; yet though often requested since the said last day of June, the said TV. V. hath never paid,” &c. The defendant pleads that before the note declared on became due, viz., on the day of its date, he placed in the hands of the said E. L. funds sufficient to pay…
1Opinion of the CourtWilde, J.
The objection taken in this case to the declaration, for the want of an allegation of a demand, at the time and place appointed for payment, cannot, we think, be maintained. It is difficult to reconcile all the cases; but the weight of au *315thority is opposed to the objection, and it has no foundation in principle.
It was for the first time determined, in the case of Callaghan vs. Aylett, 2 Camp. 549, that in an action against the maker of a promissory note, or the acceptor of a bill of exchange, payable at a place certain, it is necessary for the plaintiff to aver a demand at the place; such…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Coleman v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Washburn v. GoodmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1836