Pratt v. Hedden
This text of 121 Mass. 116 (Pratt v. Hedden) 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.
Opinion
The defendant’s contract, (whether it is to be considered in the nature of an indorsement, of a guaranty or of suretyship,) having been made after the note had once been delivered, requires proof of a distinct consideration to support it. The agreement between Pond and the bank, which is the only consideration relied on, not being proved to have been made known to the defendant, is no sufficient consideration for his promise. Ellis v. Clark, 110 Mass. 389. The defendant therefore was not liable on the note, and cannot be required to contribute to its payment. Judgment for the defendant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 Mass. 116, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-hedden-mass-1876.