Backus v. Spaulding
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract brought for the benefit of William. II. Stoddard and J. D. Kellogg, against the executors of Jonathan S. Baker, on a promissory note for $3180, made by Baker on March 1,1871, and payable to the plaintiff within four months from date, with interest.
Read the full summary
Contract brought for the benefit of William. II. Stoddard and J. D. Kellogg, against the executors of Jonathan S. Baker, on a promissory note for $3180, made by Baker on March 1,1871, and payable to the plaintiff within four months from date, with interest. Writ dated January 1, 1873. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on March 1, 1871, Baker agreed with the plaintiff to lend him $5000, and to take the plaintiff’s note therefor, payable within six years from date, and as security for the payment of that note, he agreed to…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
One promise is a legal consideration for another. Met. Con. 182. If a promissory note is made by A. to B. in exchange for a promissory note made by B. to A., each note is a valid consideration for the other, whether between the original parties, or in an action by an indorsee. Eaton v. Carey, 10 Pick. *420211. Higginson v. Gray, 6 Met. 212. Whittier v. Eager, 1 Allen, 499. If both notes are over due, and each remains in the hands of its payee, the one may doubtless be set off against the other. But the two contracts, though mutual, are independent, and if they are for the payment of money at…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Spaulding v. BackusMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Security Nat. Bank v. BohnefeldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Pelonsky v. WattendorfMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Hapgood v. WellingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- State Bank v. HayesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.