Seymour v. Prescott
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On REPORT. Assumpsit on a promissory note of the following tenor : “ Knoxville, Tennessee, June 11-, 1870. One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Charles Seymour, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, one hundred and ninety-six and 15-100 dollars at said Seymour’s office in Knoxville, Tenn., value received. (Signed) J. D. Prescott.” Answer, duress and want of consideration. The material facts appear in the opinion. I. Duress. 1 Par. Con.
Read the full summary
On REPORT. Assumpsit on a promissory note of the following tenor : “ Knoxville, Tennessee, June 11-, 1870. One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Charles Seymour, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, one hundred and ninety-six and 15-100 dollars at said Seymour’s office in Knoxville, Tenn., value received. (Signed) J. D. Prescott.” Answer, duress and want of consideration. The material facts appear in the opinion. I. Duress. 1 Par. Con. (5 ed.) 392, 393. Met. Con. 23, and ref. 2 Greenl. Ev. 302. Robinson v. Gould, 11 Cnsh. 57. Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Hill, 154. Bush v.…
1Opinion of the CourtSymonds, J.
This case was tried at nisi prius, by consent of parties, before the presiding justice, who, after hearing the evidence, ruled, as matter of law, that it did not sustain the claim of the defendant in respect either of want of consideration for the note in suit, or of its procurement by duress ; and, as these were the only grounds of defense, ordered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the note. The evidence is now before the court upon exceptions taken by the defendant to this ruling thereon.
There is an essential inconsistency between the testimony for the plaintiff and that for the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Detroit National Bank v. BlodgettMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Isgrig v. Franklin National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913