Beal v. Burchstead
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit against one of the makers of a promissory no te, of the following tenor: “ Lynn, Oct. 15, 1842. Six months after date, we promise to pay Nathaniel Beal, or order, sixty-four dollars, for value received. Burchstead & Richardson.” The note was made at Lynn, Massachusetts, and there delivered to the plaintiff, who then, and ever,since, has resided at that place.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against one of the makers of a promissory no te, of the following tenor: “ Lynn, Oct. 15, 1842. Six months after date, we promise to pay Nathaniel Beal, or order, sixty-four dollars, for value received. Burchstead & Richardson.” The note was made at Lynn, Massachusetts, and there delivered to the plaintiff, who then, and ever,since, has resided at that place. The defendant at that time, and at the time of the maturity of the note, resided in the state of Ohio, but in 1843 removed to Massachusetts, and resided here at the commencement of the action, viz. June 9,1848. Subsequent to…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The question here is on the validity of the' discharge of the defendant under the insolvent laws of Massachusetts. The note was made and dated in Lynn, payable to the plaintiff, or his order, in six months. No place of payment was expressed. At the time this note was given, the plaintiff had, and ever since has. had, his domicil in Lynn. The defendant, when he signed the note, was a citizen of Ohio, but subsequently removed to Massachusetts, and had his domicil here before and at the time of the commencement of proceedings in insolvency.
There being no place of payment expressed, it was the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Witt v. FollettNew York Supreme Court · 1829