Mendes v. Roche
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
This is an action, begun by a writ dated February 7, 1941, on an unwitnessed promissory note dated December 28, 1926, payable one day after date. The de-. fendant pleaded the statute of limitations and that was the only defence relied on. It was agreed that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount was to be $1,070.
After putting the note in evidence, the plaintiff called to the stand one Harlow, an attorney, who testified that the note was placed in his hands for collection and that he had a conference with the defendant on October 24, 1936, at which the defendant admitted that he…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nutter v. MroczkaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Gillingham v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Markiewicz v. TotonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Blackler v. BoottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Sutherland v. MacLeodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Friedman v. JablonskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- I v. Services of America, Inc. v. Inn Development & Management, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
- Salinsky v. Perma-Home Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
- Newburgh v. FLORSHEIM SHOE COMPANYDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1961
- O'ROURKE v. Jason Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.