Day v. Kinney

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Day v. Kinney

131 Mass. 37, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 177

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 5, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 Mass. 37 (Day v. Kinney) 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

Day v. Kinney, 131 Mass. 37, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 177 (Mass. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The ruling at the trial was right. The gen uineness of the signature of the note was admitted. The defendant did not offer to prove that he took it by way of payment as money, as distinguished from purchase as a chattel; nor that at the time of the transaction the makers had stopped payment, or been adjudged bankrupt' or insolvent, or the plaintiffs knew of their actual insolvency. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs did not warrant, but the defendant took the risk of, the solvency of the makers. See Burgess v. Chapin, 5 R. I. 225 Beckwith v. Farnum, 5 R. I. 230.

In Ellis v. Wild, 6 Mass. 321, the note was forged. In Weddigen v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co. 100 Mass. 422, the drawers stopped payment before the check was presented in the usual course of business. And in each of those cases the paper was taken by way of payment, and not by way of purchase.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Gray, C. J.

The ruling at the trial was right. The gen uineness of the signature of the note was admitted. The defendant did not offer to prove that he took it by way of payment as money, as distinguished from purchase as a chattel; nor that at the time of the transaction the makers had stopped payment, or been adjudged bankrupt' or insolvent, or the plaintiffs knew of their actual insolvency. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs did not warrant, but the defendant took the risk of, the solvency of the makers. See Burgess v. Chapin, 5 R. I. 225 Beckwith v. Farnum, 5 R. I. 230.

In Ellis v. Wild, 6 Mass. 321, the note was forged. In Weddigen v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co. 100 Mass. 422, the drawers stopped payment before the check was presented in the usual course of business. And in each of those cases the paper was taken by way of payment, and not by way of purchase.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Mass. 37, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-kinney-mass-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack