Columbia Falls Brick Co. v. Glidden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, on a promissory note. The writ was dated October 18, 1890. The declaration was as follows: “And the plaintiff says the defendants, then doing business as copartners under the firm name of Hobbs, Glidden, & Co., made and delivered to the plaintiff their promissory note, a copy of which with the indorsements thereon is hereto annexed; that thereafter, and before the maturity of said note, the plaintiff indorsed the same and negotiated it for value ; that at the…
Read the full summary
Contract, on a promissory note. The writ was dated October 18, 1890. The declaration was as follows: “And the plaintiff says the defendants, then doing business as copartners under the firm name of Hobbs, Glidden, & Co., made and delivered to the plaintiff their promissory note, a copy of which with the indorsements thereon is hereto annexed; that thereafter, and before the maturity of said note, the plaintiff indorsed the same and negotiated it for value ; that at the maturity of said note the same was duly presented for payment at the Howard National Bank, but was not paid, whereof the…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
The contract which the defendants made in this case was to pay the note to the person who might be its legal holder at the time of its maturity. From this contract they have been released by their discharge in insolvency, the note having been proved against their estate by its then holder. Pub. Sts. c. 157, § 26. St. 1884, c. 236, § 5, as amended by St. 1885, c. 353, § 1, and by St. 1889, c. 406, § 1. The fact that after the maturity of the note the payee was obliged to pay to its indorsee the balance due on the note after deducting the dividend received from the estate of the defendants, did…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thayer v. DanielsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Phoenix National Bank of Providence v. BatchellerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Hunt v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by1 opinion
- Abbott v. HillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893