Backus v. Spaulding

116 Mass. 418, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 4
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 6, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 418 (Backus v. Spaulding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 4 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

One promise is a legal consideration for another. Met. Con. 182. If a promissory note is made by A. to B. in exchange for a promissory note made by B. to A., each note is a valid consideration for the other, whether between the original parties, or in an action by an indorsee. Eaton v. Carey, 10 Pick. [420]*420211. Higginson v. Gray, 6 Met. 212. Whittier v. Eager, 1 Allen, 499. If both notes are over due, and each remains in the hands of its payee, the one may doubtless be set off against the other. But the two contracts, though mutual, are independent, and if they are for the payment of money at different times, each must be performed according to its terms. Strangborough v. Warner, 4 Leon. 3. Waterhouse v. Kendall, 11 Cush. 128. Traver v. Stevens, Ib. 167.

But this case is not one of a mere exchange of notes. The plaintiff, in consideration of a sum of money lent to him by the defendants’ testator, and of a note made to him by the latter for the payment of an additional sum in four months, made and delivered to him a note for the amount of both sums, payable in six years, together with an assignment, as collateral security for the payment thereof, of a contract relating to certain real estate. The promise of the plaintiff to pay his note at maturity, and the delivery of the collateral security.for the performance of that promise, constitute a sufficient consideration for the promise, contained in the note received by him, to pay the sum therein expressed at an earlier date. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Security Nat. Bank v. Bohnefeld
1928 OK 201 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Pelonsky v. Wattendorf
152 N.E. 337 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
State Bank v. Hayes
92 N.W. 1068 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1902)
Shannon v. Horley
32 Misc. 623 (New York Supreme Court, 1900)
Newmarket Savings Bank v. Hanson
32 A. 774 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1893)
Hurst v. Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co.
30 Abb. N. Cas. 1 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Hapgood v. Wellington
136 Mass. 217 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Backus v. Spaulding
129 Mass. 234 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Spaulding v. Backus
122 Mass. 553 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 418, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/backus-v-spaulding-mass-1875.