Riggs v. Hawley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, for $186.73, payable to the plaintiff or order. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: The plaintiff had been in partnership with the defendant and one Burr, under the name of Hawley, Burr & Riggs.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, for $186.73, payable to the plaintiff or order. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: The plaintiff had been in partnership with the defendant and one Burr, under the name of Hawley, Burr & Riggs. At the trial he offered evidence tending to show, that, upon his withdrawal from said firm, or subsequently, there was a settlement between himself and Hawley and Burr; that the sum of $1600 was found due him; that the smoke-houses and fixtures of Hawley and Burr were…
1Opinion of the CourtEndicott, J.
This was a controversy between partners, whether a final settlement between them was binding and conclusive. It appeared in evidence that at the settlement it was agreed that $1600 was due the plaintiff, that certain partnership property was assigned to him in part payment, and the note in suit, with two others, was given for the balance. • The defendant offered evidence that $1600 was not the true indebtedness ; that it was in fact much less; that what was due was paid by the transfer of the property; that the note was without consideration, and procured by fraud and misrepresentation.…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Prout v. Inhabitants of the Fire District in PittsfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- McKay v. MyersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Stuart v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Northern Liberty Market Co. v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Headley v. HackleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.