¶1The note was made in Massachusetts, and the contract of the makers with the payees and with any indorsee thereof was to be performed here, and governed by our law. Story Confl. Laws, §§ 317, 344, 345. By that law, the facts offered to be proved at the trial constituted no defence. Blanchard v. Stevens, 3 Cush. 162. Exceptions overruled.
116 Mass. 310
Woodruff v. Hill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 23, 1874
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-11-23
<p>Where a negotiable promissory note, made in this Commonwealth and payable here, is indorsed in another state, the liability of the maker to the indorsee is determined by the law of this Commonwealth.</p> <p>It is no defence to an action by an indorsee against the maker of a negotiable promissory note made in this state and payable here, that the indorsee received the note from the payee in satisfaction of a preexisting debt, and that the note was delivered by the maker to the payee without consideration, and under an agreeaent that he should only use it to raise money by pledging it as collateral security to his own debt.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-11-23
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1923
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →