Dole v. Weeks
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The declaration was “ a plea of the case for that at, &c., on, &c., the said Weeks, by his note in writing, of that date, by him subscribed, for value received, promised one J. K. K., to pay Him or bearer seventy-five dollars, payable, on, &.c. And the plaintiff is the bearer of said note; yet, though often requested, the said Weeks has not paid said sum, but refuses to do it; to the damage,” &c.
Read the full summary
The declaration was “ a plea of the case for that at, &c., on, &c., the said Weeks, by his note in writing, of that date, by him subscribed, for value received, promised one J. K. K., to pay Him or bearer seventy-five dollars, payable, on, &.c. And the plaintiff is the bearer of said note; yet, though often requested, the said Weeks has not paid said sum, but refuses to do it; to the damage,” &c. To this declaration the defendant demurred generally, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.
1Per curiam
The declaration is certainly not in the usual form, it being common to allege notice, whereby the defendant became liable, and in consideration thereof promised, &c.
On a general demurrer, we must presume the plaintiff to be the lawful bearer of the note. When there is sufficient matter substantially alleged to entitle the plaintiff to his action, the declaration will be good on a general demurrer. On this ground we shall support this declaration ; but we wish practitioners would make it a *396rule to adhere to established forms in their declarations and pleadings. They would save much trouble to…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wright v. Standard Ultramarine and Color Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1955
- Burton & Co. v. HansfordWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Daddario v. City of PittsfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Curtis v. HurlburtSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Conto v. SilviaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.