Hatchings v. Edmands
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the defendants as makers of a promissory note for $149.50, dated January 18, 1875, payable “on demand after date ” to the order of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Contract against the defendants as makers of a promissory note for $149.50, dated January 18, 1875, payable “on demand after date ” to the order of the plaintiff. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., it appeared that the note was signed by two of the defendants, and that the defendant Artemas Edmands placed his name, in blank, on the back of the note at the time of its execution, and before its delivery to the plaintiff. • There was no evidence of any notice to Artemas of the nonpayment of the note; and he asked the judge to rule, that, as the note was made payable “ on…
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
In the opinion of a majority of the court, the promissory note on which this action was brought is not a note payable on time, within the meaning of the St. of 1874, e. 404.* It is an ordinary demand note, payable at once on demand, on which an action could have been brought immediately after it was given, without any demand.
This construction of the note renders it unnecessary to determine whether the St. of 1874, c. 404, relates only to such promissory notes as are expressly payable at a fixed and certain time after their date, or includes also promissory notes that are payable at some time…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bemis v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
3Cited by20 opinions
- n.sidney Nyhus v. Travel Management CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Hull v. MyersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- O'Neil v. MagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Shuman v. Citizens State BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- Citizens Bank of Pleasantville v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.