MacKeown v. Lacey

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

MacKeown v. Lacey

86 N.E. 799, 200 Mass. 437, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 1019

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 86 N.E. 799 (MacKeown v. Lacey) 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

MacKeown v. Lacey, 86 N.E. 799, 200 Mass. 437, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 1019 (Mass. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

The instruments declared on were promissory notes, though not negotiable, and were given by the defendant’s testator to the payee for money lent by her to him before their marriage. Interest was paid on them by him to within a few days of the marriage. After the marriage the notes remained in the possession of the payee, but no interest was paid or demanded. After the testator’s death the notes were indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff, and were duly delivered by her to the plaintiff and thereupon this action was brought. No money or other consideration was paid ior the transfer of the notes, and the plaintiff was cognizant of the facts in regard to them. The defendant asked the judge

* to rule that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The' judge refused so to rule and found for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. The case is here on exceptions by the defendant to the refusal to rule as requested and to the finding in favor of the plaintiff.

The indorsements operated as assignments of the notes to the plaintiff, (Hill v. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132; 2 Ames, Cases on Bills & Notes, 100, n. 1,) and under St. 1897, c. 402, (R. L. c. 173, § 4,) which was in force at the time of the transfer and when the action was brought, the assignee could sue in her own name. The notes were valid in their inception, and whatever may have been the law formerly it must now be regarded as settled in this Commonwealth that the subsequent marriage of the maker and payee did not extinguish them or render them void. Butler v. [438]*438Ives, 139 Mass. 202. Spooner v. Spooner, 155 Mass. 52. Chapman v. Kellogg, 102 Mass. 246, and Abbott v. Winchester, 105 Mass. 115, were disapproved if not overruled in Butler v. Ives, supra. It is still the law that husband and wife are incompetent to contract with each other. Caldwell v. Nash, 190 Mass. 507. But at the time when these notes were made the parties were not husband and wife and that rule, therefore, does not apply.

P. R. Clay, for the plaintiff, was not called upon. J. P. Sweeney, for the defendant.

Bxceptions overruled.

Bond, J.

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

Morton, J.

The instruments declared on were promissory notes, though not negotiable, and were given by the defendant’s testator to the payee for money lent by her to him before their marriage. Interest was paid on them by him to within a few days of the marriage. After the marriage the notes remained in the possession of the payee, but no interest was paid or demanded. After the testator’s death the notes were indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff, and were duly delivered by her to the plaintiff and thereupon this action was brought. No money or other consideration was paid ior the transfer of the notes, and the plaintiff was cognizant of the facts in regard to them. The defendant asked the judge

* to rule that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The' judge refused so to rule and found for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. The case is here on exceptions by the defendant to the refusal to rule as requested and to the finding in favor of the plaintiff.

The indorsements operated as assignments of the notes to the plaintiff, (Hill v. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132; 2 Ames, Cases on Bills & Notes, 100, n. 1,) and under St. 1897, c. 402, (R. L. c. 173, § 4,) which was in force at the time of the transfer and when the action was brought, the assignee could sue in her own name. The notes were valid in their inception, and whatever may have been the law formerly it must now be regarded as settled in this Commonwealth that the subsequent marriage of the maker and payee did not extinguish them or render them void. Butler v. [438]*438Ives, 139 Mass. 202. Spooner v. Spooner, 155 Mass. 52. Chapman v. Kellogg, 102 Mass. 246, and Abbott v. Winchester, 105 Mass. 115, were disapproved if not overruled in Butler v. Ives, supra. It is still the law that husband and wife are incompetent to contract with each other. Caldwell v. Nash, 190 Mass. 507. But at the time when these notes were made the parties were not husband and wife and that rule, therefore, does not apply.

P. R. Clay, for the plaintiff, was not called upon. J. P. Sweeney, for the defendant.

Bxceptions overruled.

Bond, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.E. 799, 200 Mass. 437, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackeown-v-lacey-mass-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack