Hapgood v. Wellington

Decided January 1, 1884

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1884-01-01

Contract upon a promissory note for $350, dated September 1, 1880, payable on demand to the order of the plaintiff, signed by the defendant, and indorsed by one Smith.

Relies on Hodgkins v. Moulton · Hubon v. Park · Backus v. Spaulding

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-01-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1926

6 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 →

C. Allen, J.

¶1It has been held in several cases, that, where a promissory note is given in consideration of the payee’s promise to do something for the maker, an action may be maintained on the note by the payee against the maker without proving performance on his own part. Waterhouse v. Kendall, 11 Cush. 128. Traver v. Stevens, 11 Cush. 167. Hodgkins v. Moulton, 100 Mass. 309, 311. Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418. Hubon v. Park, 116 Mass. 541. Turner v. Rogers, 121 Mass. 12. And in Moseley v. Ames, 5 Allen, 163, it was held that a note executed and delivered as collateral security for a guaranty entered into by the payee, upon which he was still responsible, might be proved by him against the insolvent estate of the maker. The present case falls within the principle of these decisions, and the entry must be

¶2Judgment affirmed.