Lowney v. Perham
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a bill of exchange, dated Oct. 5th, 1838, drawn by the defendant upon Benjamin Tainter, for $3000, payable to his own order at the Suffolk Bank, in Boston, in nine months from date, and indorsed by bim and by one Richard Treat. Evidence was offered that the bill was duly protested for non-payment, and due notice thereof was seasonably forwarded to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a bill of exchange, dated Oct. 5th, 1838, drawn by the defendant upon Benjamin Tainter, for $3000, payable to his own order at the Suffolk Bank, in Boston, in nine months from date, and indorsed by bim and by one Richard Treat. Evidence was offered that the bill was duly protested for non-payment, and due notice thereof was seasonably forwarded to the defendant. The defence was, that usurious interest had been taken in the negotiation of the bill to the plaintiff, and that after the nonpayment of the bill, the plaintiff had extended the time of…
1Opinion of the Court
*240The opinion of the Court was by
Shepley J.
This suit is on a bill of exchange drawn on the fifil of October, 1836, by the defendant upon Benjamin Tainter and payable to his own order at the Suffolk Bank, Boston, in nine months from date. It was drawn and indorsed by the defendant for the accommodation of Tainter. Richard Treat, according to the testimony of Hayford, introduced by the defendant, is found in possession of the bill and disposing of it to the plaintiff at a discount greater than six per cent, per annum; and he indorsed it. A question arose on the trial, whether the bill, as between…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- President of the Bank of United States v. HatchSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Braman v. HessNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brooks ex rel. McDougall v. McKinneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1843
- Brooks ex rel. McDougall v. McKinneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1843