Tuttle v. George A. Tuttle Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion by defendants. Assumpsit on a joint promissory note given by the defendants to the plaintiff. The note reads as follows : “$8000 Feb. 11, 1902. . On demand after date we promise to pay to the order of Mary H. D. Tuttle three thousand dollars at — with interest at 6 per cent, per ánnum payable every three months. Value received. George Á. Tuttle Company By George A. Tuttle, President.” Written on the back of the note is the following: “George A. Tuttle.
Read the full summary
On motion by defendants. Assumpsit on a joint promissory note given by the defendants to the plaintiff. The note reads as follows : “$8000 Feb. 11, 1902. . On demand after date we promise to pay to the order of Mary H. D. Tuttle three thousand dollars at — with interest at 6 per cent, per ánnum payable every three months. Value received. George Á. Tuttle Company By George A. Tuttle, President.” Written on the back of the note is the following: “George A. Tuttle. Waiving demand and notice. John S. Millin. Waiving demand and notice,” The writ runs against the George A. Tuttle Company and John…
1Opinion of the CourtPeabody, J.
Assumpsit on promissory note. The case is before the court on motion of defendants for new trial. The action is on a joint promissory note of the defendants to Mary H. I). Tuttle for $3000, dated February 11, 1902, with interest at six per cent payable on demand. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note and interest.
The plaintiff is the wife of Edward P. Tuttle. The defendant, John S. Millin, is treasurer of the George A. Tuttle Company and owner of the majority of the capital stock. The defendant, Walter E. Tuttle, is the executor of the will of George A.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Whitney v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Oakes v. Cattaraugus Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Stanton v. New York & Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
- Abbott v. HapgoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Smith v. ParkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gramatan National Bank and Trust Co. v. PierceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1960
- Cushion Heel Shoe Co. v. HarttIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- Tanner v. Sinaloa Land & Fruit Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1913