Proctor v. Whitcomb
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
. Contract upon a promissory note for $2500, dated January 9, 1877,'payable four months after date, at the Eliot National Bank of Boston, to the order of the makers, Whitcomb and Thayer, and indorsed by them and by the defendant.
Read the full summary
. Contract upon a promissory note for $2500, dated January 9, 1877,'payable four months after date, at the Eliot National Bank of Boston, to the order of the makers, Whitcomb and Thayer, and indorsed by them and by the defendant. Writ dated November 16, 1880. The answer admitted the indorsement by the defendant, demand upon the makers, non-payment by them, and a demand upon the defendant; alleged that the defendant indorsed the note for the accommodation of the makers, who agreed with the defendant that no other use should be made of said note than to obtain money thereon at the Eliot…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
There was no evidence of any agreement or understanding, to which the defendant was a party, which would limit the authority of the Eliot Bank to dispose of the note in suit, with the principal debt for which it was held as security. The only agreement with the defendant was that the note should be used at the Eliot Bank, and nowhere else. This means, that it was to be used there by Whitcomb and Thayer. If we look through the whole account given by the defendant and her son, of what took place between them at the time the note in suit was given, it is plain that the agreement between them did…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Atlas National Bank v. SaveryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- National Pemberton Bank v. PorterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Proctor v. WhitcombMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3Cited by2 opinions
- Klein v. German National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- Anderson v. Home National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935