¶1All the instructions requested were rightly refused^ Upon the subject of the two first there was conflicting evidence which was rightly submitted to the jury. The attestation, though not in the usual place, might apply to the whole note if proved to have been made for the purpose after the note had been completed. Richardson v. Boynton, 12 Allen, 138. The instruction upon this point, not having been excepted to or reported, must be deemed to have been correct. Exceptions overruled.
115 Mass. 584
Warren v. Chapman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 22, 1874
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-09-22
Contract on a note for $500, dated December 15, 1848, payable to the plaintiff. The writ was dated March 12,1869. The note purported to be attested by one Horace Bartlett, the word? “ attest, Horace Bartlett,” being written below the body of the note, and directly above and over the date of the note. The answer stated that the suit was not brought within six years nor within twenty years from the date of the note, and denied the making of the note.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1936
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-09-22
View the full empirical analysis of this case →