Legal Opinion
Sturdivant v. Hull
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided July 1, 1871PublishedCited by 12 opinions
On exceptions to the ruling of Cfoddard, J., of the superior court for the county of Cumberland, at the November term, 1870.
1Opinion of the CourtBaRROws, J.
Assumpsit by tlxe payees against the maker of a promissory note of the following tenor:
“•$225.00 PORTLAND, Dec. 20, 1869. Four months after date, I promise to pay to the order of Sturdivant & Co., two hundred and twenty-five dollars. Payable at either bank in Portland, with interest. Yalue received. Johk T. Hull, Treas. St. Paul's Parish." Ü.S.I.R. Stamp. 25 cents.
The signature to the note was not denied, but the defendant offered to prove, and if evidence dehors the note is admissible for that purpose, we must consider it as proved, that at the time the note was made, defendant was treasurer…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stackpole v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Rossiter v. RossiterNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Tucker Manufacturing Co. v. FairbanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hobson v. HassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Exchange Bank of Virginia v. County of LewisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Keokuk Falls Improvement Co. v. Kingsland & Douglas Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1896
- Wiers v. TreeseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Guthrie v. ImbrieOregon Supreme Court · 1885
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.