Knights v. Putnam
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to W. Putnam or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue. At the trial, before Putnam J., the defendant offered the indorser as a witness, to prove that the consideration of the indorsement was usurious ; but he was rejected as incompetent, on the authority of Manning v: Wheatland, 10 Mass.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to W. Putnam or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue. At the trial, before Putnam J., the defendant offered the indorser as a witness, to prove that the consideration of the indorsement was usurious ; but he was rejected as incompetent, on the authority of Manning v: Wheatland, 10 Mass. R. 502. The indorser had released to the defendant all his claims upon the note, and the defendant offered to prove by him that the note was pledged to the plaintiff as collateral security for a debt much less than…
1Opinion of the Court
Wilde J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. As to the question of usury, the case of Manning v. Wheatland is directly in point. But the authority of that case has been questioned, and the objection to the doctrine, as it was there laid down, is entitled to great consideration.
The witness was held to be incompetent, not because he was interested, but on the ground of legal policy, which will not permit one, who has transferred a negotiable security as valid, to invalidate it by his testimony.1 But in that case, as in this, there was no illegality in the original contract, and no usury except…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fox v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Kent v. WaltonNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Griffith v. RefordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Gardner v. FlaggMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Widgery v. MunroeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Continental Credit Co. v. ElySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917