Mosher v. Allen

16 Mass. 451
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1820·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the payee of a promissory note, not nego tiable, puts his name on the back thereof, intending [ *453 ] *to transfer it, he authorizes the prosecution of a suit in his name: for there is no other way of making the assignment effectual. But not so when the payee of a negotiable note endorses it; for that act transfers the property and the right of action, and is an assignment in law by the statute of Anne The payee in such case has lost all property in the note, and all control over it. Certainly, without his consent, no action can be maintained upon it in his name.

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

Mosher v. Allen, 16 Mass. 451 (Mass. 1820).

16 Mass. 451 (Mosher v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dietrick v. Siegel
7 Mass. App. Div. 210 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Prudential Loan Corp. v. Peraner
6 Mass. App. Div. 185 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1941)
Pierce v. Talbot
100 N.E. 553 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Cotting v. Foster
60 N.E. 386 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Troeder v. Hyams
27 N.E. 775 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Hodges v. Holland
36 Mass. 43 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1837)
Ramsdell v. Soule
29 Mass. 126 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1831)