Blake v. Sewell

3 Mass. 556
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1799
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 3 Mass. 556 (Blake v. Sewell) 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
Blake v. Sewell, 3 Mass. 556 (Mass. 1799).

Opinion

The defendant’s counsel made three points in the case. First, that when a negotiable note or bill of exchange is once paid, it is no longer negotiable; second, that when such a note or bill is overdue, that is, has become payable, and is afterwards endorsed, such subsequent endorsee must take it on the credit of his endorser only; and, third, that any prior party, whether drawer or endorser, shall .have every advantage against such subsequent endorsee, which he could have had against his endorser.

The defendant’s counsel moved the Court,- and was permitted to give in evidence, that the consideration of the note was certain goods purchased at auction by Pomeroy, for himself and Wilson in certain proportions, and that it was made payable to [ * 557 ] Sewell merely to obtain his credit, he having *no interest in the purchase; that Wilson had paid Pomeroy his proportionable part of the note, before he took it up at the bank, and that it was placed in the hands of Blake, the plaintiff, as collateral security for a note not then due ; it being agreed at the same time between Blake and Pomeroy, that Blake should keep the delivery of the note secret from Wilson and Sewell, until after the note for which this had been lodged as collateral security should become [485]*485payable; and that in fact it had so been kept secret more than eighteen months; in which time Pomeroy failed.

The counsel for the plaintiff contested all the points made m the case by the defendant’s counsel.

But the Court, viz., Dana, Paine, Cushing, and Dawes, concurring in their opinion on the first point, viz., that the note having been paid at the bank by Pomeroy, ceased to be negotiable, Dana, C. J., directed the jury accordingly, who found their verdict for the defendant, without leaving their seats. The other points were not considered as necessary to be settled by the Court in this case

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

Related

French v. Jarvis
29 Conn. 347 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1860)
Norton v. Downer
33 Vt. 26 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1860)
Davis v. Miller
14 Va. 383 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1857)
Rockingham Bank v. Claggett
29 N.H. 292 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Wallace v. Branch Bank
1 Ala. 565 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1840)
Cochran v. Wheeler
7 N.H. 202 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1834)
Tarbell v. Whiting
5 N.H. 63 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1829)
Mead v. Small
2 Me. 207 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1823)
Guild v. Eager
17 Mass. 615 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1822)
Emerson v. Cutts
12 Mass. 77 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1815)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Mass. 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-sewell-mass-1799.