Davis v. Travis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note against Edward P. Travis and Albert Mead, copartners under the firm of Travis & Mead, as makers, and Alonzo F. Travis as indorser. The declaration contained no express allegation that the note was made or indorsed for value.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note against Edward P. Travis and Albert Mead, copartners under the firm of Travis & Mead, as makers, and Alonzo F. Travis as indorser. The declaration contained no express allegation that the note was made or indorsed for value. The answer of Alonzo F. Travis specifically denied indorsement, demand and notice, and “that he owes the plaintiff any sum or sums of money whatsoever,” and concluded by denying “ each and every allegation of the plaintiff as fully as if the same were specifically stated and denied.” At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., the…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
We are of opinion that the ruling of the court at the trial was erroneous. Under the provisions of the practice act, a general denial in the answer of the allegations in the plaintiff’s declaration is sufficient to put in issue all the facts necessary to be proved by the plaintiff in order to make out a primd facie case. Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 17. Boston Relief & Submarine Co. v. Burnett, 1 Allen, 410. Estabrook v. Boyle, Ib. 412. In the latter case it was held that such a general denial made it incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the consideration of a note in an action by an indorser against…
2Cited by15 opinions
- McRae v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Caverly v. McOwenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Amsinck v. American InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Stults v. SilvaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Tranfaglia v. Security National BankMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1973
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.