Goddard v. Cutts
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit on a promissory note for $151,57, dated Jan. 11, 1833. The defence was, that the note was invalid by reason of the failure of a condition upon which alone it was to be binding. Two witnesses for the defendant, testified, that on the day of the giving of the note, Gustams G. Cushman, the Attorney of the plaintiff, and Jos.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note for $151,57, dated Jan. 11, 1833. The defence was, that the note was invalid by reason of the failure of a condition upon which alone it was to be binding. Two witnesses for the defendant, testified, that on the day of the giving of the note, Gustams G. Cushman, the Attorney of the plaintiff, and Jos. T. Copeland, an officer, came to Milo with two writs against Cutts, one of the defendants — that, he heard a conversation between Cushman and Cutts in relation to the settlement of the demand against Cutis, in which it was agreed, that if said Cutis would give a…
1Opinion of the Court
Weston J.
The discharge of the old notes, written upon the copies, was evidently founded upon the giving of the new note, which was received in payment. If that never took effect as a subsisting note, or was avoided as inoperative by the defendants, the consideration for the receipt failed. Upon these facts, it would appear that the old notes were not discharged, but might be recovered, as the jury were instructed. A receipt forms an exception to the rule of law, that written testimony cannot be contradicted or varied by parol.
A motion is filed to set aside the verdict, as against the weight…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Westman v. KrumweideSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Burrowes Corporation v. ReadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
- McIntosh-Huntington Co. v. RiceColorado Court of Appeals · 1899
- Kuhn v. SimmonsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
- McIntosh-Huntington Co. v. RiceColorado Court of Appeals · 1899