Osgood v. Pearsons
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action of contract, commenced on the 8th of September 1853, by Atis Osgood and William F. Osgood against George W. Pearsons. The declaration contained two counts; the first of which alleged that the defendant made the following promissory note payable to them, and owed them the amount thereof: “ Dracut, August 16th 1853. Good to Atis Osgood or Wm. F. Osgood for one hundred and eighty one dollars and eighty eight cents, value received. George W. Pearsons.”
Read the full summary
Action of contract, commenced on the 8th of September 1853, by Atis Osgood and William F. Osgood against George W. Pearsons. The declaration contained two counts; the first of which alleged that the defendant made the following promissory note payable to them, and owed them the amount thereof: “ Dracut, August 16th 1853. Good to Atis Osgood or Wm. F. Osgood for one hundred and eighty one dollars and eighty eight cents, value received. George W. Pearsons.” The second count alleged that the defendant owed the plaintiffs the sum of $181.88 for money had and received by the defendant to the…
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
It is quite clear that an action cannot be main tained on this instrument as a promissory note, under the St. of 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, § 1. Blanckenhagen v. Blundell, 2 B. & Ald, 417. Byles on Bills, (Amer. ed.) 154.
It is equally plain that the instrument is good evidence of debt. There would seem to have been no difficulty, before our practice act, in declaring upon it according to its legal effect, treating the promise to pay either as a promise to pay both. The note might also have been offered in evidence under the money counts. The case of Walrad v. Petrie, 4 Wend. 575, is directly in point.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jerome v. WhitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Walrad v. PetrieNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- Collyer v. CookIndiana Court of Appeals · 1902
- Passut v. HeubnerNew York Supreme Court · 1913