Williams v. Monk
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note made by Carl F. Monk and Agnes C. Monk for $370 with interest thereon. Writ dated September 25, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bond, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the defendants signed the note, and that it was given for money lent by the plaintiff to the defendants, and introduced the note in evidence.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note made by Carl F. Monk and Agnes C. Monk for $370 with interest thereon. Writ dated September 25, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bond, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the defendants signed the note, and that it was given for money lent by the plaintiff to the defendants, and introduced the note in evidence. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff held the legal title to the property at the corner of Chapman Avenue and Carlos Street in Dorchester described in the following agreement between the plaintiff and the…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.
This is an action upon a promissory note for a part of the purchase money for land conveyed by the plaintiff to the first named defendant. At the time of the conveyance there was a dispute as to which party should pay an outstanding *25sewer assessment which was a lien upon the premises. This defendant paid it with money retained out of the purchase money for that purpose, and made the note which was to be paid or returned according to the true construction of the agreement for the sale of the land. That is the only question before us.
Williams’s land was to be conveyed by a “ quitclaim deed . .…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- President of Harvard College v. Board of AldermenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Codman v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Smith v. Abington Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Codman v. American Piano Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- United Brick & Tile Co. v. AultSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938