Atkins v. Brown
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON Report. Assumpsit, tlie declaration containing tbe following counts: 1. “For that said defendant, at Portland, on the 29th day of August', a. d. 1863, by his note of hand of that date, by him signed, for value received, promised the plaintiffs to pay them, or their' order, four hundred and forty-four dollars and twenty-nine cents, in one' month after date; yet though often requested, he has not paid the same. 2. “Also, for that said defendant, at Augusta, on the day of…
Read the full summary
ON Report. Assumpsit, tlie declaration containing tbe following counts: 1. “For that said defendant, at Portland, on the 29th day of August', a. d. 1863, by his note of hand of that date, by him signed, for value received, promised the plaintiffs to pay them, or their' order, four hundred and forty-four dollars and twenty-nine cents, in one' month after date; yet though often requested, he has not paid the same. 2. “Also, for that said defendant, at Augusta, on the day of the date hereof, being indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars, for so much money "before…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.
The plaintiffs cannot recover on either of the counts upon the note. -In the first count it is described as the individual note of the defendant; in the third, as the joint and several nóte' of the Augusta Shovel Co. and the defendant. If it could be construed as a note upon which the defendant was originally liable at all, he must have been liable upon it only jointly with the Augusta Shovel Co. The note cannot be said to be correctly described in either of these counts, and therefore will not support either of them. If it had been correctly described in a count setting it forth as'the joint…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reeve v. First National BankSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1891
- Harris v. AckermanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Jacobs v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Nunnemacher v. PossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903