¶1The agreement of the plaintiff and the transfer to the defendant of the other note were a sufficient consideration for the note in suit. Hubon v. Park, 116 Mass. 541. The contracts of the plaintiff and of the defendant being distinct, and to be performed at different times, the non-perform-once of the one is no defence to an action on the other. Upon the question of set-off, no ruling appears to have been made at the trial, Exceptions overruled.
121 Mass. 12
Turner v. Rogers
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 21, 1876
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-09-21
Contract upon a promissory note for $203.60, signed by the defendant, dated January 27,1875, and payable to the plaintiff three months after date. The answer contained a general denial, set up want and failure of consideration, failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform a condition precedent to the payment of the note, and fraud in procuring the same. The defendant also filed a declaration in set-off.
Relies on Hubon v. Park
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-09-21
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1944
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 →