Gushee v. Eddy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon these facts: The defendant indorsed and sold the pote to the plaintiff a few days.after its date. The maker never paid it or furnished any of the articles mentioned in it.
Read the full summary
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon these facts: The defendant indorsed and sold the pote to the plaintiff a few days.after its date. The maker never paid it or furnished any of the articles mentioned in it. On the 1st of September a notary demanded payment of the note from the maker in the usual form, and on the 4th of September demanded Action of contract against the indorser of this promissory note : “ Pawtucket, R. I., June 19th 1856. On or before September 1856, for value received, I promise to pay Henry Eddy, or order, of North Bridgewater, two hundred dollars, to…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrick, J.
If it be assumed that the note declared on is negotiable, and that the plaintiff might recover the sum named in it against the defendant on legal demand and notice, still this action cannot, upon the facts agreed by the parties, be maintained, because no legal or sufficient demand of payment was made on the maker. The note is peculiar in its terms. Its'payment is to be made not merely in certain enumerated articles of manufacture or merchandise, but in such parts and proportions of each of them as the payee “ shall need.” This requires a specification by him of the articles required ; and of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jones v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Jones v. WitterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Josselyn v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Coolidge v. RugglesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Skinner v. SomesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.