Chapman v. Durant
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This action, which was in assumpsit upon an account annexed to the original writ, was tried before Parlcer, J., November term, 1811, when a verdict was taken for the defendants, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following facts agreed by the parties: — [ * 48 ] * The three defendants, Durant, Maynard, and Lamb, were owners of a vessel called the Louisa; one moiety thereof belonging to Durant, and the other moiety to the other two defendants; these latter having…
Read the full summary
This action, which was in assumpsit upon an account annexed to the original writ, was tried before Parlcer, J., November term, 1811, when a verdict was taken for the defendants, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following facts agreed by the parties: — [ * 48 ] * The three defendants, Durant, Maynard, and Lamb, were owners of a vessel called the Louisa; one moiety thereof belonging to Durant, and the other moiety to the other two defendants; these latter having provided the furniture and outfits for previous voyages, received and disposed of the cargoes, and paid all expenses and…
1Per curiam
By the law merchant the defendant Durant, from the facts agreed in this case, was originally liable to the plaintiff’s demand, as he was a part owner of the vessel. But by the plaintiff’s taking and negotiating a negotiable promissory note from some of the owners, for the sum demanded in this action, the case is brought within the principle often recognized by the courts of law in this commonwealth, that a negotiable promissory note, given in consideration of a debt due by simple contract, is a discharge *59of such contract. The action is not supported, and there must be (a)
Judgment on the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Bank of the United States v. DANIELSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Clark v. Robert Young & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Hutchins v. OlcuttSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
- Dayton v. TrullNew York Supreme Court · 1840
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Emerson v. Providence Hat Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- James v. BixbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Wallace v. AgryU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1827
- Harris v. LindsayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1822
- Real Estate Bank v. RawdonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.