President of Central Bank v. Davis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs as indorsees of a promissory note, against the defendant as indorser. The declaration contained various counts. The note was as follows: ££ Grafton, June 23d, 1835. Three months from date I promise to pay Moses Roberts or his order $ 500 at the Central Bank in Worcester ; it being for value received. “ (Signed,) Millotte Baker.” (Indorsed on the back,) “ Waiving right to notice. “ Moses Roberts. ££ Joseph Davis.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs as indorsees of a promissory note, against the defendant as indorser. The declaration contained various counts. The note was as follows: ££ Grafton, June 23d, 1835. Three months from date I promise to pay Moses Roberts or his order $ 500 at the Central Bank in Worcester ; it being for value received. “ (Signed,) Millotte Baker.” (Indorsed on the back,) “ Waiving right to notice. “ Moses Roberts. ££ Joseph Davis.” In a case stated, the execution of the note by Baker and the indorsement by the defendant, are admitted. The note was presented for discount by Baker, who…
1Opinion of the Court
Morton J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiffs having derived their title to the note through the defendant’s indorsement, he is estopped from denying the genuineness of the signatures of the antecedent parties. It is not competent for him to show that he had no legal title to the chose in action which, for a valuable consideration paid by the plaintiffs, he transferred to them. Peake’s Ev. 221; 2 Stark. Ev. 267; Bayley on Bills, (Phil. and Sewall’s 2d ed.) 149; Lambert v. Oakes, 1 Lord Raym. 443; Critchlow v. Parry, 2 Campb. 282; Codwise v. Gleason, 3 Day 12.
The origin of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Yeaton v. Bank of AlexandriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Codwise v. GleasonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1808