Shoe & Leather National Bank v. Dix
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the makers of the following instrument: “ February 16, 1871. $53,000. For value received, we as trustees but not individually promise to pay to the Boston Water Power Company or order, the sum of fifty-three thousand dollars in five years from this date, with interest to be paid semiannually, at the rate of seven per centum per annum, during said term, and for such further time as said principal sum or any part thereof shall remain unpaid.
Read the full summary
Contract against the makers of the following instrument: “ February 16, 1871. $53,000. For value received, we as trustees but not individually promise to pay to the Boston Water Power Company or order, the sum of fifty-three thousand dollars in five years from this date, with interest to be paid semiannually, at the rate of seven per centum per annum, during said term, and for such further time as said principal sum or any part thereof shall remain unpaid. “ Secured by mortgage of real estate in Boston, duly stamped, to be recorded in Suffolk Registry of Deeds.” This instrument was indorsed…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
The question whether the defendants have made themselves personally responsible must be determined by the terms of the note itself. In determining the proper interpretation of any written contract, the court will give full effect to all the terms in which it is expressed. Those terms will not be *150modified by extrinsic evidence tending to show that the real intention of the parties was something different fimn what the language imports. They will be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense, except where it may be qualified by some special usage, or where the context evidently shows that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sumner v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Forster v. FullerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Tucker Manufacturing Co. v. FairbanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by20 opinions
- Schumann-Heink v. FolsomIllinois Supreme Court · 1927
- Hynes v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Larson v. SylvesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Hussey v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Rogaris v. AlbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.