Costelo v. Crowell

127 Mass. 293, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 78
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedAugust 19, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 127 Mass. 293 (Costelo v. Crowell) 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
Costelo v. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 78 (Mass. 1879).

Opinion

Lord, J.

Whether, by the general law merchant, the note in suit would be deemed a negotiable note is a question upon which the authorities are by no means uniform. See Brill v. Crick, 1 M. & W. 232; Jury v. Barker, E. B. & E. 459; Williams v. Waring, 10 B. & C. 2; Haussoullier v. Hartsinck, 7 T. R. 733; Wise v. Charlton, 4 A. & E. 786; Fancourt v. Thorne, 9 Q. B. 312; [294]*294Treat v. Cooper, 22 Maine, 203; Arnold v. Rock River Valley Railroad, 5 Duer, 207; Sanders v. Bacon, 8 Johns. 485; Cummings v. Gassett, 19 Vt. 308.

In this Commonwealth, however, it is settled by an uninter* rupted series of decisions, that any language, put upon any portion of the face or back of a promissory note, which has relation to the subject-matter of the note, by the maker of it before delivery, is a part of the contract; and that if by such language payment of the amount is not necessarily to be made at all events, and of the full sum in lawful money, and at a time certain to arrive, and subject to no contingency, the note is not negotiable. Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 245. Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322. Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228. Makepeace v. Harvard College, 10 Pick. 298. Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165. Barnard v. Cushing, 4 Met. 230. Cota v. Buck, 7 Met. 588. Osgood v. Pearsons, 4 Gray, 455. Palmer v. Ward, 6 Gray, 340. Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 170. Haskell v. Lambert, 16 Gray, 592. Way v. Smith, 111 Mass. 523. Stults v. Silva, 119 Mass. 137.

The words written upon the face of the note, “ given as collateral security with agreement,” being incorporated in and made part of the contract, indicate with clearness that there may be a contingency, to wit, the performance of the undertaking to which this is collateral, in which it would not be payable; and so it lacks that element of negotiability which requires that at all events a sum certain shall be payable at a time certain. As this is decisive of the case, it is unnecessary to consider any other question. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Alcoa Credit Co. v. Nickerson
43 Mass. App. Dec. 1 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1968)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Monarski
25 Mass. App. Dec. 165 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1963)
United States v. Farrington
172 F. Supp. 797 (D. Massachusetts, 1959)
Barron v. Boynton
15 A.2d 191 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1940)
State Trading Corp. v. Toepfert
23 N.E.2d 1008 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Gloucester Mutual Fishing Insurance v. Boyer
294 Mass. 35 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Fayetteville Building & Loan Ass'n v. Crouch
177 S.E. 532 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1934)
Newman v. Schwarz
153 So. 362 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Economy Fuse & Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Electric Manufacturing Co.
274 Ill. App. 139 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Maksymiuk v. Puceta
181 N.E. 388 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
First National Bank v. Wolfson
171 N.E. 460 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Mayo v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.
269 Mass. 118 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Pierce, Butler & Pierce Manufacturing Corp. v. Daniel Russell Boiler Works, Inc.
159 N.E. 625 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Ivory v. Lamoreaux
217 N.W. 54 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1928)
Eastern Mutual Insurance v. Atlantic National Bank
157 N.E. 520 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Whittier v. First National Bank
214 P. 536 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1923)
National Bank of Newbury v. Wentworth
105 N.E. 626 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Greenbrier Valley Bank v. Bair
77 S.E. 274 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1913)
Neyens v. Port
46 Pa. Super. 428 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
First National Bank v. Badham
68 S.E. 536 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 Mass. 293, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costelo-v-crowell-mass-1879.