Abbott v. Winchester

105 Mass. 115
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The note in suit was given by Rodolphus Converse, the defendants’ intestate, to Maria Clark, August 25, 1856. It was given in payment for services rendered to the maker by the payee, and was left in the hands of the attesting witness. On the 24th of the following month the parties intermarried ; and sometime afterwards it was delivered to the maker, who kept it for the benefit of his wife till a few weeks before his death.

The principle stated in Chapman v. Kellogg, 102 Mass. 246, must govern this case. The note became a mere nullity, and could not be revived by the death of the husband.

Judgment for the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Abbott v. Winchester, 105 Mass. 115 (Mass. 1870).

105 Mass. 115 (Abbott v. Winchester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MacKeown v. Lacey
86 N.E. 799 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Blackwell v. Blackwell
81 N.E. 910 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
National Bank of the Republic v. Delano
70 N.E. 444 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Spencer v. Stockwell
56 A. 661 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1904)
Martin v. Martin
16 N.E. 413 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Butler v. Ives
29 N.E. 654 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Fowle v. Torrey
135 Mass. 87 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Franklin Savings Bank v. Greene
14 R.I. 1 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1882)
Degnan v. Farr
126 Mass. 297 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)