Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Mass. 414

Dow v. Tuttle

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 15, 1808

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1808-05-15

Assumpsit by the endorsee against the maker of a promissory note, dated February 16, 1804, payable, in one year from the date, to Benjamin Dow, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff, on the 12th day of July, 1805.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““From the evidence it seems that the two paper writings should, between the original parties, and between the maker and an assignee with notice, have been treated as parts of one entire transaction.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Sutton v. Beckwith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1808-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 1971

24 state decisions — followed in 14 states

50180818101820183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

¶1The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered by

Parsons, C. J.

¶2We are satisfied that the agreement, proposed by the deféndant to be given in evidence at the trial, is not to be considered as a part of the contract with the note. That is a promise to pay to the promisee, or his order, a sum of money in one year If the agreement was a part of this contract, it would be repugnant to the note, and destroy its effect. The agreement, although made at the same time, must be considered as a collateral promise of the promisee’s, for the breach of which, if there be a legal consideration, an action would lie. In chancery, it would be a sufficient ground for an injunction against the plaintiff, proving his knowledge of it' before he purchased the note. And at law, perhaps, it may support a motion to stay proceedings, by granting imparlances, [*416] until the plaintiff could put *it in suit consistent with the agreement. But, on this last point, it is not now necessary to decide.

¶3As we consider the agreement as collateral to the note, the evidence was properly rejected, and a new trial cannot be granted.

¶4Judgment according to verdict, (a)

¶5 [From the evidence, it seems that the two paper writings should, between the original parties, and between the maker and an assignee with notice, have been treated as parts of one entire transaction. — Ed.]

/4/mass/414 · .json · Public domain