Parker v. Hanson

Decided June 15, 1811

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1811-06-15

Assumpsit bn a promissory note of the following tenor, viz. “ Vass. 23, 3 mo. 1803. Value received, I promise to pay Bartholomew Taber, or order, seventy-five dollars, in three years from date, interest. Caleb Hanson, Jun.—Attest. Elihu Hanson.” On the back of the note were the two following endorsements, viz. “ I am not to be holden; for value received, pay the contents to Nathaniel Parker. Bart.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1848

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.

¶1The question submitted is, whether Taber was a legal and competent witness. He was not interested in the event of the suit, since, by his special endorsement of the note, he had protected himself from all liability upon it. But it is suggested, that he ought not to have been admitted within the rule which forbids a party to a negotiable security to impeach it as originally void, (a)The rule does not apply to the facts of this case. The note is not objected to as originally void, but as having been frauduently altered ; and this the witness was competent to prove.

¶2Judgment on the verdict.

¶3[No such rule exists in the common law. — Ed.]