Whitwell v. Winslow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
CONTBAOT, against Isaiah B. Winslow and Frederick Wins-low, upon the following instrument, signed by the first-named defendant and indorsed by the other defendant: “Fall River, June 29, 1872. For value received I promise to pay to Elijah Pierce or bearer five hundred dollars with interest the same as savings banks pay.”
Read the full summary
CONTBAOT, against Isaiah B. Winslow and Frederick Wins-low, upon the following instrument, signed by the first-named defendant and indorsed by the other defendant: “Fall River, June 29, 1872. For value received I promise to pay to Elijah Pierce or bearer five hundred dollars with interest the same as savings banks pay.” Writ dated August 7,1877. Isaiah B. was defaulted, and Frederick, who alone defended, answered, admitting his signature on the back of the instrument declared on, but denying that he made the instrument either by himself or with Isaiah B., or that he had any notice of its…
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
The exception, that it was not open, under the pleadings, to the defendant to contend that the instrument declared on was not negotiable, was waived at the argument.
The rejection of the evidence of what Frederick Winslow said to the plaintiff at the time he gave the note to him, so far as it was offered for the purpose of varying the legal effect of the instrument, was right. Neither could the evidence offered, if true, operate as an estoppel to prevent Frederick from contending that the plaintiff could not maintain in his own name an action on the instrument. If the statement made by…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Turner v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1929
- Schoonover v. OsborneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. v. BrighamNew York Supreme Court · 1905
- Colvin v. GoffOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- First Nat. Bank of Miami v. BoslerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.