Hamblen v. Ratigan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
CoNTBAOT upon a promissory note, dated February 2, 1874, signed by one Travers, and payable three months after date to the order of the defendant, who indorsed the same to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
CoNTBAOT upon a promissory note, dated February 2, 1874, signed by one Travers, and payable three months after date to the order of the defendant, who indorsed the same to the plaintiffs. Writ dated June 10, 1874. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows: Payment of the note was duly demanded of said Travers, the maker, who neglected to pay the same, and due notice of its nonpayment was given to the defendant. On February 24, 1874, before the said note became due, the…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
By the composition deed the creditors of Eatigan agreed to accept ten per cent, of the amounts due them in settlement and full discharge of their debts, and at that time the plaintiffs held a note and account against the defendant both of which were due. This deed was dated February 24, 1874, and the ten per cent, was to be paid within thirty days. There was a contingency upon which there might become due from Eatigan to the plaintiffs a certain other sum, if -Travers should fail to pay his note at maturity, and Eatigan should be properly notified thereof. The defendant contends that upon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hayes v. GoodwinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
3Cited by2 opinions
- Radovsky v. WexlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- National Mount Wollaston Bank v. PorterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877