Black v. Ridgway

131 Mass. 80, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 189
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 6, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 131 Mass. 80 (Black v. Ridgway) 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
Black v. Ridgway, 131 Mass. 80, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 189 (Mass. 1881).

Opinion

Soule, J.

The auditor’s report was prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts found relating to the liability of the [84]*84defendants on the note in suit. Gen. Sts. c. 121, § 46. It found that the defendants signed the note on the back, and owed the plaintiff the amount of it with interest and the costs of protest. As the note was made after the St. of 1874, c. 404, took effect, they could not owe this unless their liability had been fixed by due notice of demand and nonpayment, or by a waiver of such notice. The report therefore contained evidence which would warrant a finding that the defendants had been notified or had waived notice, and the ruling to that effect by the judge who presided at the trial was correct. It follows that the three requests of the defendants for rulings on the matter of notice were properly refused.

The fourth ruling asked for by the defendants was rightfully refused. It appeared that John J. Ridgway had enjoyed some benefit from the agreement, in consideration of which the note in suit was given. He had been made agent for the Hew York Calcium Light Company, had sold some gas to the plaintiff in consequence, and had sold more or less gas to others. Even if the plaintiff had violated the agreement to the injury of said Ridgway, the consideration of the note had not therefore wholly failed, and Ridgway was entitled only to a reduction of the amount which he had agreed to pay, equal to the injury which he had sustained by the misconduct of the plaintiff. Gordon v. Parmelee, 15 Gray, 413. Bassett v. Percival, 5 Allen, 345.

The fifth ruling asked for was not given in the terms of the request. But the ruling given, as applied to the evidence in the case, embraced the subject matter of the request, and was all that the defendants were entitled to.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

In Re Estate of Hore
19 N.W.2d 783 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1945)
Rydeen v. Collins
220 Minn. 374 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1945)
First National Bank v. Mathey
31 N.E.2d 25 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Beerman
5 N.E.2d 554 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Finance Corp. of New England, Inc. v. Maynard
143 N.E. 908 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Thorpe v. White
74 N.E. 592 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Marston v. Singapore Rattan Co.
39 N.E. 1113 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Hurst v. Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co.
30 Abb. N. Cas. 1 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Pacific Fire Insurance v. Pacific Surety Co.
28 P. 842 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Schaffner v. Köber
28 N.E. 871 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 Mass. 80, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-ridgway-mass-1881.