Hutchins v. Nichols
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit against the indorser of the following promissory note: “ §689.50. West Boylston, February 21, 1848. For value received I promise to pay Chas. R. Nichols or bearer, six hundred and eighty nine dollars and fifty cents on demand, with interest. Henry F. Holt.” At the trial, in the court of common pleas, the defendant admitted the indorsement of the note in blank.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the indorser of the following promissory note: “ §689.50. West Boylston, February 21, 1848. For value received I promise to pay Chas. R. Nichols or bearer, six hundred and eighty nine dollars and fifty cents on demand, with interest. Henry F. Holt.” At the trial, in the court of common pleas, the defendant admitted the indorsement of the note in blank. It appeared also that the defendant, when holder of the note as the payee thereof, negotiated it to Messrs. J. W. Blodget and company of Boston for a valuable consideration; whilst said note was held by said Blodget and…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
We are of opinion that the agreement of December 21,1848, made with Holt, the promisor, by Blodget and company, the holders, must be construed as a reserve *302by them of their remedy, after the expiration of nine months, against the defendant, the indorser, for the balance remaining due on the note. The stipulation, that they would not sue the defendant within nine months, necessarily implies that they reserved the right to sue him after that time. Upon any other construction, the agreement to give him time was nugatory. For, after their agreement not to call further on Holt, Blodget and company…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- James Lynch v. ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1819