¶1The directions we think were right; the plaintiff proved a legal title to the note, and the facts proposed to be proved by the defendant could afford him no ground of defence. It was no fraud upon the defendant; he was called upon to pay only what he had undertaken to pay ; and payment to the plaintiff would be a good discharge. Knights v. Putnam, 3 Pick. 184. Judgment on the verdict.
60 Mass. 19
Prouty v. Roberts
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1850
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1850-09-15
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note signed by the defendant, payable to Daniel Whitney or order, on demand, and indorsed by Whitney. The note was dated on the 12th of August, 1849, and was put in suit on the 22d of October following.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1929
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1850-09-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →