President of Hallowell & Augusta Bank v. Howard

13 Mass. 235
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Nothing is a lawful tender but gold and silver. To permit the defendants thus to set off these promissory notes would be allowing cross demands to be set off in like manner in every case. These notes are nothing more than evidence of a right of action ; so that, if the assignment were out of the question, the motion could not obtain. The only course in such case would be, for the present defendants to obtain a judgment upon the notes and set off such judgment against the plaintiffs’ judgment.

The defendants were afterwards defaulted.

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

President of Hallowell & Augusta Bank v. Howard, 13 Mass. 235 (Mass. 1816).

13 Mass. 235 (President of Hallowell & Augusta Bank v. Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vick v. Howard
116 S.E. 465 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1923)
Farmer's Bank of Virginia v. Gettinger
4 W. Va. 305 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1870)
Ellis v. Smith
42 Ala. 349 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1868)
In re the White Mountains Bank
46 N.H. 143 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1865)
Smith v. Davis
45 N.H. 566 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1864)
West, Oliver & Co. v. Ball
12 Ala. 340 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1847)
Northampton Bank v. Balliet
8 Watts & Serg. 311 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1844)
Adams v. Butts
33 Mass. 343 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1835)
Sargent v. Graham
5 N.H. 440 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1831)
Sargent v. Southgate
22 Mass. 311 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1827)
Goodwin v. Cunningham
12 Mass. 192 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1815)
Clark v. Leach
10 Mass. 51 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)