Providence Tool Co. v. United States Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note, dated Boston, August 1, 1873, payable to the plaintiff three months after date • and •signed: “ U. S. Manfg. Co., Geo. H. Fox, Treas.”
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note, dated Boston, August 1, 1873, payable to the plaintiff three months after date • and •signed: “ U. S. Manfg. Co., Geo. H. Fox, Treas.” At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the defendant offered as a witness George H. Fox, its treasurer, who made the promissory note declared upon, and asked him the following question : “ whether or not he had authority to make this note as treasurer of the defendant company?” referring to the note in issue. The judge, against the plaintiff’s objection that the question called for a conclusion of law and not of…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
The plaintiff’s case depended entirely on the vac lidity of the promissory note, which Fox had assumed to give in the character and capacity of treasurer of the defendant company. Whether he had authority to do so was a vital question. We must assume that the inquiry put to him did not relate to any express authority to sign that specific note. If that had been its meaning, the objection that it called for the witness’s opinion upon a point of law would hardly have been raised, or if raised, it would have been obviated by a change in the form of the question. But, however that may be, it is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Short Mountain Coal Co. v. HardyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
3Cited by10 opinions
- Beaucage v. MercerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Foley v. Hotel Touraine Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
- Jenks v. CareyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Waniorek v. United RailroadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Krueger v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.