¶1The defendant’s contract, (whether it is to be considered in the nature of an indorsement, of a guaranty or of suretyship,) having been made after the note had once been delivered, requires proof of a distinct consideration to support it. The agreement between Pond and the bank, which is the only consideration relied on, not being proved to have been made known to the defendant, is no sufficient consideration for his promise. Ellis v. Clark, 110 Mass. 389. The defendant therefore was not liable on the note, and cannot be required to contribute to its payment. Judgment for the defendant
121 Mass. 116
Pratt v. Hedden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 10, 1876
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-10-10
Contract for $2325.47, and interest thereon, being money-paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant’s use, “ the same being one third of the amount paid by the plaintiffs on taking up and paying the following note, signed by Lucius W. Pond, and the plaintiffs : “ Worcester, May 18, 1870.
Relies on Ellis v. Clark
Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “I Q.B”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-10-10
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1939
1 federal appellate · 8 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 →