Central Savings Bank v. Richards

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Central Savings Bank v. Richards

109 Mass. 413

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 109 Mass. 413 (Central Savings Bank v. Richards) 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

Central Savings Bank v. Richards, 109 Mass. 413 (Mass. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Mortoít, J.

It is the settled rule that a promise in writing to accept a bill of exchange, drawn or to be drawn, is a virtual acceptance in favor of a person to whom the promise is shown and who takes the bill on the credit of such promise. This subject was carefully considered by the court in the recent case of Exchange Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 98 Mass. 288, and it is sufficient to refer to the discussion in that case. The case at bar falls within this rule. The telegram sent to the St. Louis Zinc Company was an authority for it to draw the bill of exchange in suit, and necessarily implied a promise to accept it. This telegram was shown to the plaintiffs, who thereupon discounted the bill. They took the bill upon the faith of the defendants’ promise, and are entitled to hold them as acceptors.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

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

Mortoít, J.

It is the settled rule that a promise in writing to accept a bill of exchange, drawn or to be drawn, is a virtual acceptance in favor of a person to whom the promise is shown and who takes the bill on the credit of such promise. This subject was carefully considered by the court in the recent case of Exchange Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 98 Mass. 288, and it is sufficient to refer to the discussion in that case. The case at bar falls within this rule. The telegram sent to the St. Louis Zinc Company was an authority for it to draw the bill of exchange in suit, and necessarily implied a promise to accept it. This telegram was shown to the plaintiffs, who thereupon discounted the bill. They took the bill upon the faith of the defendants’ promise, and are entitled to hold them as acceptors.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 Mass. 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-savings-bank-v-richards-mass-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack