Gleason v. Saunders
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note for $1000, payable on demand. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the plaintiff objected that, if the facts set forth in the defendant’s answer were proved, they constituted no defence to the action. By the consent of parties, the judge, before verdict, reported the case for the consideration of this court.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note for $1000, payable on demand. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the plaintiff objected that, if the facts set forth in the defendant’s answer were proved, they constituted no defence to the action. By the consent of parties, the judge, before verdict, reported the case for the consideration of this court. If the facts set forth in the answer and competent to be proved, constituted no defence to the action, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff; otherwise, the case to stand for trial. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtEndicott, J.
For the purposes of this decision the averments of the answer are to be taken as true, and the question is whether, if proved, they constitute a defence to the action.
It appears that the plaintiff’s intestate, Kimball C. Gleason, and the defendant, lent to one Johnson, the owner of a patent right, five thousand dollars; Gleason contributing one thousand, and the defendant four thousand dollars. Johnson gave his note therefor to the defendant, payable in four months, and assigned to him the patent right as collateral security; and also gave him an agreement to convey an interest in the patent…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ward v. WinshipMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by2 opinions
- Handley v. DrumAppellate Court of Illinois · 1925
- Young v. HayesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912