Costelo v. Barnard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, with three counts. Writ dated June 26, 1902. The defendant in answer to the first count pleaded a general denial, demurring to the second and third counts on the grounds hereafter stated.
Read the full summary
Tort, with three counts. Writ dated June 26, 1902. The defendant in answer to the first count pleaded a general denial, demurring to the second and third counts on the grounds hereafter stated. At the trial in the Superior Court before Richardson, J. the jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the first count, finding also in answer to special questions, that the plaintiff did not purchase the note set forth in the declaration in good faith for value and before its maturity, that the defendant did not make the note with fraudulent intent to have it issued as a good and valid note and…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This case comes here on appeal by the plaintiff from an order sustaining a demurrer to the second and third counts of the declaration and entering judgment for the defendant. The action is one of tort.
The second count alleges in substance that the defendant, intending to deceive any person to whom it might come, made a written instrument in imitation of and purporting to be a negotiable promissory note of the town of Watertown, and unlawfully signed thereto the names of the persons holding the offices of selectmen and treasurer, and, knowing that any person to whom such instrument might come…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hancock v. Empire Cotton Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Cannon v. DillehayAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919