Demond v. Burnham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against Daniel S. Burnham as indorser of a promissory note, for $200, dated Boston, October 20, 1879, payable three months after date, at-, to the order of the plaintiffs, and signed “ Webster C. Langmaid, Brighton District.” The name of the defendant appeared on the back of the note.
Read the full summary
Contract against Daniel S. Burnham as indorser of a promissory note, for $200, dated Boston, October 20, 1879, payable three months after date, at-, to the order of the plaintiffs, and signed “ Webster C. Langmaid, Brighton District.” The name of the defendant appeared on the back of the note. The answer admitted the indorsement of a certain note by the defendant, which he stated he believed was signed by said Lang-maid, and that, when the original note which he so indorsed should be produced at the trial, his signature would be admitted ; and alleged want of demand on the maker and of notice…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
The defendant in his answer does not deny, and therefore admits, that he indorsed the note declared on. It must be taken, therefore, that the words “ Brighton District,” were upon the note when it was indorsed. These words do not designate the place at which the note is payable. They are not inserted in the blank left in the body of the note for the place of payment. They follow the signature, and are connected only with that, and can have no greater effect than to identify the maker as of the Brighton District. The court will take notice that the Brighton District is a part of Boston; and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Talbot v. National Bank of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Simmons v. PooleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Farnsworth v. MullenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895