Matthews v. Matthews
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Continued for judgment for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissoi’y note which plaintiff’s testimony showed to be lost. The case was reported from the Superior Court of Cumberland County for such judgment as the legal rights of the parties might require. The facts appear in the opinion. It is not usual and not required in the Federal Courts to declare specially on a lost note as lost, no special count being necessary in such a case.
Read the full summary
On report. Continued for judgment for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissoi’y note which plaintiff’s testimony showed to be lost. The case was reported from the Superior Court of Cumberland County for such judgment as the legal rights of the parties might require. The facts appear in the opinion. It is not usual and not required in the Federal Courts to declare specially on a lost note as lost, no special count being necessary in such a case. Renner v. The Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 581; Dupignac v. Quick, 56 N. Y. Sup. 385; Adams v. Baker, 16 R. I. 1, 27 Am. St. Rep. 721; Monroe v. Weir, 177…
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.
This is an action by the payee against the maker of a negotiable promissory note, claimed to have been lost after its maturity, and without indorsement. The case comes before us upon report, and all technical questions of pleading, not being specially reserved, must be considered waived.
In this State it is settled that an action at law may be maintained against the maker upon a lost note. Torrey v. Foss, 40 Maine, 74; Moore v. Fall, 42 Maine, 450, 66 Am. Dec. 297.
The principal contention of the parties is as to whether the plaintiff should have judgment without furnishing the defendant with a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sulunias v. PoolosSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Huron College v. Union County Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Smith v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1931