Legal Opinion

Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Trainor

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided April 7, 1997Published

1Opinion of the CourtWelsh, J.

This is an action to recover a balance allegedly due on a promissory note. The trial judge found for the defendant, implicitly finding that the plaintiffs were not holders in due course, an issue on which the plaintiffs had the burden of *47proof. G.L.c. 106, §3-307(3); see Perry v. Schlaikjer, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 864 (1977). The judge made no findings of fact; he was not required to do so. See Dist./Mun. Cts. R Civ. P., Rule 52(a). It cannot be gainsaid that the plaintiff’s ipse dixit that they were holders in due course was valueless in satisfying that element of their prima facie case. Id. at…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kunen v. First Agricultural National BankMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
  2. Welford v. NobregaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  3. Teletransmissions, Inc. v. DavidMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
  4. James H. Boyle & Son, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  5. Bettencourt v. Poirier & Ware Heat Treating Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API