Ewer v. Myrick
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This action was brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$750. — Nantucket, December 4th 1838. Ten years after date, I, Daniel Bunker, as principal, and George Myrick, jr., as surety, for value received, promise to pay tc Peter F. Ewer, or his heirs, the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, with interest semiannually. Fifty dollars of the principal to be paid annually until the whole is paid. Daniel Bunker.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$750. — Nantucket, December 4th 1838. Ten years after date, I, Daniel Bunker, as principal, and George Myrick, jr., as surety, for value received, promise to pay tc Peter F. Ewer, or his heirs, the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, with interest semiannually. Fifty dollars of the principal to be paid annually until the whole is paid. Daniel Bunker. George Myrick, jr Witness, Josiah Hussey, Notary Public.” Indorsements. — “ December 4 th 1839. Received of George Myrick, jr.,…
1Opinion of the CourtForbes, J.
It was objected, on behalf of the defendant, that no part of the principal of this note would become due until the expiration of ten years from its date. This objection is answered by the terms of the contract, which leave nothing open to construction; the promise is express that fifty dollars of the principal shall be paid annually. It was then contended that, if the note is payable b) instalments of fifty dollars a year, the whole amount of sevv hundred and fifty dollars would not become due until the expiration of fifteen year’s from the date. By suppressing a part of the agreement, this…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bissell v. ForbesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905