York Bank v. Appleton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated January 18, 1836, for the sum of £§>3900, payable to Moses Emery, or order, at said Bank, in sixty days and grace, and by him indorsed to the Bank on tbe day of its date, in renewal of a former note by the same parties. The notes were justly due from Appleton to Emery, and were discounted for the latter by the Bank.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated January 18, 1836, for the sum of £§>3900, payable to Moses Emery, or order, at said Bank, in sixty days and grace, and by him indorsed to the Bank on tbe day of its date, in renewal of a former note by the same parties. The notes were justly due from Appleton to Emery, and were discounted for the latter by the Bank. The defence set up was, that the note in suit was paid to the Bank by substituting therefor another note for the same sum, dated October 26, 1836, signed by the defendant, indorsed by Emery, and guarantied by William Cutter; or by a note to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
Moses Emery, a witness, introduced by the plaintiffs, was undoubtedly interested in the event of the suit. He was liable as indorser of the note; and his interest is conceded by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Being objected to, he was not legally admissible, unless his interest was removed. And in our opinion this has not been done. It does not appear, that Mr. Shepley, the plaintiffs’ attorney in this suit, had any other authority from them, except what resulted from his being employed by them in this cause. That could not give him the right to release…
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. HildrethSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842