Morrison v. Lamson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The declaration alleged that the Whetstone Hosiery■ Company made a bill of exchange, a copy of which, with the indorsements thereon, was annexed, payable to the order of the plaintiffs; that the defendants, the drawees named therein, for a valuable consideration duly accepted the same, and the plaintiffs were the owners and holders of the bill; and that the defendants owed the plaintiffs the amount of the bill and interest thereon, except the sum of $379.70, which…
Read the full summary
Contract. The declaration alleged that the Whetstone Hosiery■ Company made a bill of exchange, a copy of which, with the indorsements thereon, was annexed, payable to the order of the plaintiffs; that the defendants, the drawees named therein, for a valuable consideration duly accepted the same, and the plaintiffs were the owners and holders of the bill; and that the defendants owed the plaintiffs the amount of the bill and interest thereon, except the sum of $379.70, which had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The copy annexed was as follows: “ Brattleboro, Vt., June 4th, 1897.…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
1. The natural meaning of a direction to pay from a designated fund is to pay only from that fund. See Josselyn v. Lacier, 10 Mod. 294, 317; Jenny v. herle, 1 Stra. 591; Macleed v. Snee, 2 Stra. 762; Wheeler v. Souther, 4 Cush. 606 ; Proctor v. Hartigan, 139 Mass. 554. The added direction to “ charge the same to our account ” is as consistent with this meaning as with that for which the plaintiffs contend. In either case the sum paid is to be charged to the drawers’ account. In the present order the words “ from equities on hosiery consigned to you ” seem to us to be a condition that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Proctor v. HartiganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Whitney v. Eliot National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Cook v. WolfendaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Russell v. BarryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Proctor v. HartiganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Checkeway v. Pejepscot Paper Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1929