Fay v. Fay
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on two promissory notes, by the payee against the maker. Answer, want of consideration. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., without * a jury, Edmund B. Fay, the plaintiff’s husband, was the only witness called by either party, and testified in substance as follows : “ In 1871, Charles M. Fay, the defendant’s father, left the Commonwealth, insolvent, having first made an absolute conveyance to the defendant of all his estate, and, in consideration…
Read the full summary
Contract on two promissory notes, by the payee against the maker. Answer, want of consideration. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., without * a jury, Edmund B. Fay, the plaintiff’s husband, was the only witness called by either party, and testified in substance as follows : “ In 1871, Charles M. Fay, the defendant’s father, left the Commonwealth, insolvent, having first made an absolute conveyance to the defendant of all his estate, and, in consideration thereof, the defendant, with the assent of the creditors of his father, assumed his father’s liabilities, and thereupon…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The notes in suit, having been made in consideration of an agreement which was in fraud of the defendant’s other creditors, were void as between the parties. Ramsdell v. Edgarton, 8 Met. 227. Howe v. Litchfield, 3 Allen, 443. Sternburg v. Bowman, 103 Mass. 325. Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sternburg v. BowmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by5 opinions
- P. J. Willis & Bro. v. MorrisTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Walker v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Newell v. HigginsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Crosby v. GiambussoMassachusetts District Court · 1949
- Moore v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880