Houghton v. Mann
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on the money counts, to recover the contents of this note: “ Boston, January 11th 1836. For value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Daniel Mann six thousand three hundred and eighty dollars and twenty five cents in one year from the 22d day of August next, with interest annually from the 22d of August last. Daniel Mann, Principal. Attest: Samuel Kendall, Surety. J. Willard to D. Mann.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on the money counts, to recover the contents of this note: “ Boston, January 11th 1836. For value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Daniel Mann six thousand three hundred and eighty dollars and twenty five cents in one year from the 22d day of August next, with interest annually from the 22d of August last. Daniel Mann, Principal. Attest: Samuel Kendall, Surety. J. Willard to D. Mann. T. Peckham, jr. to D. M. and S. K.” The case was submitted to the court, on the following agreed statement: “ Said note is indorsed by the said Daniel Mann, by his…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The facts, as they stand in the agreed statement, leave it doubtful whether the blank indorsement was originally filled up. But it was agreed, at the argument, that, at the time of the original transaction, (if the fact is open to proof,) the signing of the note and the indorsement were both attested by the witness at the same time ; that the note was delivered, in the presence of the witness, to Goodnow, for his own use; and that it was afterwards by him transferred still under the blank indorsement, to the present plaintiff.
In answer to a defence on the statute of limitations, the only…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Russell v. SwanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- Commonwealth v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863