Pray v. Maine
This text of 61 Mass. 253 (Pray v. Maine) 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
No title is shown by the defendant to the note relied upon as a set-off. Wingate, though he put his name on the back of the note, was still a promisor to Chandler & [254]*254Maine, as settled in Hunt v. Adams, 5 Mass. 358, and 6 Mass. 519. The note was therefore extinguished, by payment by a promisor, who could not again put it in circulation as against a co-promisor. The only right that Wingate derived, or could derive, from the payment thus made by him as surety and co-promisor, was to claim the amount of Pray for money paid at his request, and for his use, and that right was not negotiable. Exceptions overruled
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 Mass. 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pray-v-maine-mass-1851.