Fisher v. Leland
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit on a negotiable promissory note, made by the defendant Leland, as principal, and the other defendants, Fogg and Harrington, as sureties, to one James Luke, Jr., or order, and by him, before maturity, indorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a negotiable promissory note, made by the defendant Leland, as principal, and the other defendants, Fogg and Harrington, as sureties, to one James Luke, Jr., or order, and by him, before maturity, indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and filed a specification of defence, in which they set forth that they should undertake to prove that the note relied on by the plaintiff was obtained by luke, the payee, by fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation and without consideration; of all which the plaintiff had notice when he took the…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The single question is, whether, after the defendant had proved that the plaintiff took the note in question by indorsement before it was due, but with notice that the promisors intended to defend on the ground, that the note was obtained by the payee of the maker by fraud, they could give in evidence the fraudulent acts of the payee; and whether they could give in evidence the admissions and confessions of the payee, whilst he was the holder of the note and before the indorsement, to prove such fraud. The distinction appears to be this: that when an indorsee takes a bill or note, by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- White v. KiblingNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Wilson v. HolmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Humphries v. Blight's AssigneesSupreme Court of the United States · 1803