Goodfellow v. Farnham

128 N.E. 776, 236 Mass. 453, 1920 Mass. LEXIS 871
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 23, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 128 N.E. 776 (Goodfellow v. Farnham) 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
Goodfellow v. Farnham, 128 N.E. 776, 236 Mass. 453, 1920 Mass. LEXIS 871 (Mass. 1920).

Opinion

Braley, J.

The material parts of the instruments declared on read as follows: “On demand after date I promise to pay to the order of Ann Maria Sprague One thousand Dollars with interest at 8% per annum. In case of Mrs. Sprague’s decease, the principal to be kept as a fund for the Baptist Society at Westminster, Mass., interest to go to Theodosia Miles Whitman; and in case of her [454]*454decease, interest to go to said Baptist Society.” “On demand after date I promise to pay to the order of Ann Maria Sprague Four hundred Dollars with interest at 8% per annum. In case of Mrs. Sprague’s decease, the principal to be kept as a fund for the Baptist Society at Westminster, Mass., interest to go to Theodosia Miles Whitman; and in case of her decease, interest to go to said Baptist Society.”

The defendants’ demurrer having been sustained and judgment ordered in their favor, the question for decision on the plaintiff’s appeal is, whether the instruments are negotiable promissory notes. If they are, it is immaterial that no value is expressly stated. R. L. c. 73, § 23. The promise in each instrument to pay to the order of the payee is absolute and she could by indorsement in her lifetime have transferred title, and the indorsee could have demanded and enforced payment. The words following do not create any contingency postponing payment, or impose any limitation on or modification of the defendants’ promise to pay to her absolutely and at all events. It is plain that this is the only express contract between the intestate and the makers, and being unconditional the defence of non-negotiability cannot prevail. R. L. c. 73, § 18. Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass. 113. National Bank of Newbury v. Wentworth, 218 Mass. 30, 32. The judgment accordingly must be reversed and the demurrer overruled.

So ordered.

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

Related

Sager Electrical Supply Co. v. Bragdon Hardware Co.
5 Mass. App. Div. 255 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
City National Bank v. Adams
266 Mass. 239 (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)
Central National Bank v. Hubbel
154 N.E. 551 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Star Brewing Co. v. Higgins
248 Mass. 480 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Parker v. Roberts
137 N.E. 295 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Goodfellow v. Farnham
132 N.E. 363 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 N.E. 776, 236 Mass. 453, 1920 Mass. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodfellow-v-farnham-mass-1920.