Legal Opinion

Norfolk County Trust Co. v. Vichinsky

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided January 20, 1977PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant, Neal M. Vichinsky, is an officer of a corporation whose promissory note drawn to the order of the plaintiff bank is in default. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is personally liable on the note on the basis of his unqualified signature on its reverse side. The plaintiff produced the note; the genuineness of the signatures thereon is not in dispute. See G. L. c. 106, § 3-307(2). The burden was then placed upon the defendant to disprove liability. Carleton Ford, Inc. v. Oste, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 819 (1973). Following the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Community National Bank v. DawesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  2. John B. Deary, Inc. v. CraneMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
  3. Loew v. MinasianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
  4. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. PlotkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  5. Carleton Ford, Inc. v. OsteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. SladeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  2. Tupling v. BrittonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. First Safety Fund National Bank v. FrielMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
  4. K-Ross Building Supply Center, Inc. v. Winnipesauke Chalets, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
  5. Espinola v. Riley's Liquors, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1994

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API