Putnam v. Churchill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendant in error, as endorsee of a negotiable promissory note, brought his action upon it against Putnam, the maker of the note. At the Court of Common Pleas, Putnam, to obtain a continuance, had made an agreement on record, that he would not appeal from the judgment of that Court, if it should be rendered against him.
Read the full summary
The defendant in error, as endorsee of a negotiable promissory note, brought his action upon it against Putnam, the maker of the note. At the Court of Common Pleas, Putnam, to obtain a continuance, had made an agreement on record, that he would not appeal from the judgment of that Court, if it should be rendered against him. He then pleaded usury, and offered to verify his plea by his oath, agreeably to the statute of 1783, c. 55. To this plea Chu chill demurred, and in the Common Pleas recovered judgment. To reverse that judgment, Putnam has sued his writ of error, and has assigned the…
1Opinion of the Court
* By the Court.
It is generally true that, where an [ *517 ] appeal is given by statute from the judgment of any court, the remedy, if a party be aggrieved by the judgment, should be by appeal on which the merits of the cause may be examined, as well as errors in law or fact corrected. But this rule does not extend to cases where the party had no opportunity to appeal, without any fault or neglect on his part. When Putnam had waived nis right to appeal by an agreement on record, to which Churchill himself was a party, he ought not to be considered as in fault. He has lost his right to appeal, and…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Palmer v. OakleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1847
- Champion v. BrooksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Myrick v. HaseySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1847
- Skipwith v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Burrows v. MicklerSupreme Court of Florida · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.