Mehlinger v. Harriman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mehlinger v. Harriman

70 N.E. 51, 185 Mass. 245, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 797

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 N.E. 51 (Mehlinger v. Harriman) 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

Mehlinger v. Harriman, 70 N.E. 51, 185 Mass. 245, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 797 (Mass. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammond, J.

At the time the defendant delivered the note to Marcus there was an oral agreement between them by which Marcus was not permitted to negotiate it to Riley. Although apparently Marcus attempted to violate that agreement, still he did not succeed, for the judge finds that Smith purchased the note of Marcus and thereafter held it until he sold it to the [247]*247plaintiff. It is not shown therefore that the note was fraudulently put into circulation. The judge further finds that before its maturity the plaintiff became a bona fide purchaser, giving as a consideration therefor his own note to Smith, who still holds it. These findings are warranted by the evidence. The plaintiff upon the facts found by the judge took the note in due course of business, R. L. c. 73, § 69, and, there being no fraud, is entitled to recover its full value.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Hammond, J.

At the time the defendant delivered the note to Marcus there was an oral agreement between them by which Marcus was not permitted to negotiate it to Riley. Although apparently Marcus attempted to violate that agreement, still he did not succeed, for the judge finds that Smith purchased the note of Marcus and thereafter held it until he sold it to the [247]*247plaintiff. It is not shown therefore that the note was fraudulently put into circulation. The judge further finds that before its maturity the plaintiff became a bona fide purchaser, giving as a consideration therefor his own note to Smith, who still holds it. These findings are warranted by the evidence. The plaintiff upon the facts found by the judge took the note in due course of business, R. L. c. 73, § 69, and, there being no fraud, is entitled to recover its full value.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.E. 51, 185 Mass. 245, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mehlinger-v-harriman-mass-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack