Canton v. Shaffer
This text of 146 N.E. 770 (Canton v. Shaffer) 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.
Opinion
The defendant Los Angeles Company made a promissory note payable to the order of H. Goodowsky, which before delivery was indorsed by the defendant Shaffer. The plaintiff, while a holder of the note, was not a holder in due course, but contended that as an assignee he had all the rights of the payee. The answer, however, denied the signature of all parties, and, the plaintiff having offered no evidence that the signature of Goodowsky, the payee, who appeared on the back of the note to be the last indorser, was genuine, he had failed to show title in himself. Whitman v. Fournier, 228 Mass. 93. Levison v. Lavalle, 243 Mass. 47, 49. G. L. c. 231, § 29. Lowell v. Bickford, 201 Mass. 543. The defendants’ motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
146 N.E. 770, 251 Mass. 546, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canton-v-shaffer-mass-1925.