Benthall v. Judkins

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Benthall v. Judkins

54 Mass. 265

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Mass. 265 (Benthall v. Judkins) 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

Benthall v. Judkins, 54 Mass. 265 (Mass. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

Dewey, J.

This case falls" within the well settled principle of law, repeatedly decided in this court, charging a party, under circumstances like the present, as an original promisor. To make him such, it is necessary that the signature of the party sought to be charged should be placed on the note at the time of its execution; or, in other words, that the promise be made at the time when the note itself is made. But upon the production of the note, by a bona fide holder, accompanied by the signature of the defendant on the back thereof, in blank, and without date, and nothing appearing to the contrary, the presumption is, that it was thus signed by the defendant at the time of the making of the note. Union Bank of Weymouth & Braintree v. Willis, 8 Met. 504. No further proof, therefore, was necessary to be introduced by the plaintiff, to maintain his action.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Dewey, J.

This case falls" within the well settled principle of law, repeatedly decided in this court, charging a party, under circumstances like the present, as an original promisor. To make him such, it is necessary that the signature of the party sought to be charged should be placed on the note at the time of its execution; or, in other words, that the promise be made at the time when the note itself is made. But upon the production of the note, by a bona fide holder, accompanied by the signature of the defendant on the back thereof, in blank, and without date, and nothing appearing to the contrary, the presumption is, that it was thus signed by the defendant at the time of the making of the note. Union Bank of Weymouth & Braintree v. Willis, 8 Met. 504. No further proof, therefore, was necessary to be introduced by the plaintiff, to maintain his action.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Mass. 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benthall-v-judkins-mass-1847.