Legal Opinion

Randidge v. Lyman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 6, 1878PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Contract upon a promissory note for $239.37, made by the defendant, dated July 1, 1857, and payable to the plaintiff or order in six months from date. Writ dated March 6, 1876. Answer: 1. A general denial; 2. The statute of limitations; 3. A discharge under the insolvent laws.

Read the full summary

Contract upon a promissory note for $239.37, made by the defendant, dated July 1, 1857, and payable to the plaintiff or order in six months from date. Writ dated March 6, 1876. Answer: 1. A general denial; 2. The statute of limitations; 3. A discharge under the insolvent laws. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., the making of the note was admitted, and it appeared that the defendant had been absent from this Commonwealth since 1857, and had been and was a resident of Brookhaven, Long Island, in the State of New York. The defendant relied on a discharge obtained by him on…

1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.

Upon the most favorable construction for the plaintiff, the defendant made no more than a conditional promise to pay when he should be able; and upon such promise no action can be maintained without proof of his ability to pay. Tanner v Smart, 6 B. & C. 603; S. C. 9 D. & R. 549. Gould v. Shirley, 2 Moore & Payne, 581. Hart v. Prendergast, 14 M. & W. 741. Meyerhoff v. Froehlich, 3 C. P. D. 333. Tompkins v. Brown, 1 Denio, 247. United Society in Canterbury v. Winkley, 7 Gray, 460. St. 1856, c. 18. Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 3. tío competent evidence of this fact was offered. The tax-book was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HeffronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Tompkins v. BrownCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
  3. Cook v. ShearmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Johnson v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  2. Smith v. Graham Refrigeration Products Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
  3. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Indianapolis Railroad v. McDougallIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Elwell v. CumnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  5. Bartlesville Interurban Ry. Co. v. QuaidSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API