Nickerson v. Gould
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. This was an action on a promissory note, the defense being forgery. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant excepted to the rulings of the presiding justice excluding certain evidence offered by him. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
Action to recover upon a promissory note for $500, dated February 9, 1876, payable on demand to E. B. Nickerson or bearer.
The defense was that the note was a forgery; that the defendant never signed it, and never had any dealings with the alleged payee out of which this note grew or could grow; that he never received any money or any property of any kind from him, except possibly a harness, and that was allowed on rent due the defendant.
The plaintiff, son of E. B. Nickerson, testified that he acquired title to the note in the fall of 1887.
The exceptions show that much evidence was introduced…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jordan v. OsgoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Robinson v. Bright'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Huntsman v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Upton v. WinchesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Norris v. SpoffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. SmithSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1944
- Collett v. BitherSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
- State v. SanbornSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1961
- Brown v. TourtelotteSupreme Court of Colorado · 1897
- Locke v. KrautSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.