Hammond v. Ludden
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the ruling of Goodenow, J. Assumpsit on a promissory note of which the defendant was the maker and the plaintiff the indorsee. It was alleged by plaintiff that the note had been lost, or had fallen into the hands of the defendant since the action was instituted. To account for the non-production of the note at the trial, and to entitle the plaintiff to prove its contents to the jury, he offered testimony.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the ruling of Goodenow, J. Assumpsit on a promissory note of which the defendant was the maker and the plaintiff the indorsee. It was alleged by plaintiff that the note had been lost, or had fallen into the hands of the defendant since the action was instituted. To account for the non-production of the note at the trial, and to entitle the plaintiff to prove its contents to the jury, he offered testimony. The part thereof material to the question of law arising in the case, appears in the opinion of the Court. To the admission of parol evidence, to prove the contents of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Appleton, J.
The loss of a note must be proved, before evidence of its contents can be received. In this case, it appears, from the “testimony of John P. Hodsdon, “that the defendant and one French came into a blacksmith’s shop where he was at work, and wanted to see the notes; that he took the notes out of his pocket and laid them down on his forge, and turned round to sharpen some drills, for which a man was waiting; that, while sharpening the drills, defendant and French left the shop, remarking that they would not stop then, they were in a hurry;…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morrison v. JudyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1941