President of the Agricultural Bank v. Bishop

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

President of the Agricultural Bank v. Bishop

72 Mass. 317

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1856

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Mass. 317 (President of the Agricultural Bank v. Bishop) 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

President of the Agricultural Bank v. Bishop, 72 Mass. 317 (Mass. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Merrick, J.

*

There is no doubt, that if the holder of a promissory note, by any contract which can be enforced at law or in equity, extends the time of payment beyond the day fixed by the note, without the consent of the surety, the latter is thereby discharged from all further liability upon it, Greely v. Dow, 2 Met. 176. But no such contract is disclosed by the facts to which the parties in this case have agreed. The understanding, which is said to have existed between the plaintiffs and the principal debtor before this note was made, very evidently constituted no part of the written contract. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27. Central Bank v. Willard, 17 Pick. 150. The only circumstance relied upon to prove an agreement by the plaintiffs to extend the time of payment beyond the maturity of the note is the reception by them of interest for a fixed period in advance upon certain unpaid portions of the note. But this is not sufficient. In the case of Oxford Bank v. Lewis, 8 Pick. 458, and again in Blackstone Bank v. Hill, 10 Pick. 129, this point was directly determined. In both of them it was held, that the’ mere reception of interest in advance did not tie the hands of the creditor or prevent him from bringing an action upon the note at any time when he might think it to be necessary or for his interest to do so. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Dewet, J. did not sit in this case.

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

Merrick, J.

*

There is no doubt, that if the holder of a promissory note, by any contract which can be enforced at law or in equity, extends the time of payment beyond the day fixed by the note, without the consent of the surety, the latter is thereby discharged from all further liability upon it, Greely v. Dow, 2 Met. 176. But no such contract is disclosed by the facts to which the parties in this case have agreed. The understanding, which is said to have existed between the plaintiffs and the principal debtor before this note was made, very evidently constituted no part of the written contract. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27. Central Bank v. Willard, 17 Pick. 150. The only circumstance relied upon to prove an agreement by the plaintiffs to extend the time of payment beyond the maturity of the note is the reception by them of interest for a fixed period in advance upon certain unpaid portions of the note. But this is not sufficient. In the case of Oxford Bank v. Lewis, 8 Pick. 458, and again in Blackstone Bank v. Hill, 10 Pick. 129, this point was directly determined. In both of them it was held, that the’ mere reception of interest in advance did not tie the hands of the creditor or prevent him from bringing an action upon the note at any time when he might think it to be necessary or for his interest to do so. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Dewet, J. did not sit in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Mass. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/president-of-the-agricultural-bank-v-bishop-mass-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack