Proctor v. Hartigan
2 N.E. 99, 139 Mass. 554, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 147
Opinion
W. Allen, J.
The words “ To he' paid out of the last payment ” were part of the defendant’s contract of acceptance; and evidence of the contract between the drawer and drawee, and of the conversation between the parties refering to it, was competent to aid in the construction of the writing by showing the facts and circumstances under which it was made. See Franklin Savings Institution v. Reed, 125 Mass. 365; Stoops v. Smith, 100 Mass. 63. . Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Proctor v. Hartigan, 2 N.E. 99, 139 Mass. 554, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 147 (Mass. 1885).
2 N.E. 99 (Proctor v. Hartigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ford v. Rupple
Montana Supreme Court, 1972
Foreman's Systems, Inc. v. Milk Dealers' Crate Corp.
120 A. 358 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1923)
Berg v. Erickson
234 F. 817 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
Seckendorf v. Wachtel-Pickert Co.
218 Mass. 126 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Way v. Greer
81 N.E. 1002 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
American Malting Co. v. Souther Brewing Co.
80 N.E. 526 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
DeFriest v. Bradley
78 N.E. 467 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Kilby Mfg. Co. v. Hinchman-Renton Fire Proofing Co.
132 F. 957 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Morrison v. Lamson
57 N.E. 997 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Proctor v. Hartigan
9 N.E. 841 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)