Scott v. Calkin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, in three counts, against W. A. Calkin and Louise Cherrington, to recover the balance of a promissory note for $3000, dated August 31, 1875, payable to Hepsibeth Pierce or order, in instalments of $100 once in each three months, signed by the defendant Calkin, and indorsed by Pierce. It also bore upon the back the signature of the defendant Cherrington.
Read the full summary
Contract, in three counts, against W. A. Calkin and Louise Cherrington, to recover the balance of a promissory note for $3000, dated August 31, 1875, payable to Hepsibeth Pierce or order, in instalments of $100 once in each three months, signed by the defendant Calkin, and indorsed by Pierce. It also bore upon the back the signature of the defendant Cherrington. The first count was against the defendant Calkin as maker of the note; the second was against the defendant Cherrington as guarantor; and the third was against Cherrington as maker and original promisor. Cherrington, who alone…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
The indorsement of the note by the defendant Cherrington, under the circumstances proved, imported a guaranty of the payment of the note to the plaintiff, and gave *531him authority to write, over her name, the contract implied by law; and this, if necessary at all, could be done during the trial. Josselyn v. Ames, 3 Mass. 274. Tenney v. Prince, 4 Pick. 385.
The finding of the court renders immaterial the question whether demand and notice were necessary.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Josselyn v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kahn v. WaldmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Goodman v. GaullMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Gloucester Mutual Fishing Insurance v. BoyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Equitable Marine Insurance v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Ryan v. SpearMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1936