Royal Bank of Liverpool v. Grand Junction Railroad

100 Mass. 444
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Foster, J.

That the bonds declared upon were sealed instruments was settled by Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381.

The corporate seal having been affixed by the printer, by the direction of the officers of the corporation; and they having adopted his act, and subsequently signed and issued the bonds ; the sealing was duly made, and the instruments became obligatory upon the corporation. This is no more nor less than constantly takes place when a scrivener prepares and affixes a seal to a deed which the grantor thereupon signs and delivers. The practice is of unquestionable validity, and the authorities for it are abundant. “ If a stranger seal an instrument by the allowance, or the commandment precedent, or agreement subsequent, of the person who is to seal it, that is sufficient.” Cruise Dig. tit. 32, c. 2, § 55.

The allowance of the proposed amendment to the defendants’ answer would have been unavailing. A sealed instrument conclusively imports a consideration. And these bonds, having been duly executed and delivered, the holders could have maintained an action upon them, if their delivery had been merely gratuitous, and no value had ever been given for them. A delivery of a portion, as collateral security for the payment of the residue, is sufficient. If the defendants wish to avail themselves of the fact that a part were held only as collateral security for the rest, they cannot do so until they have paid in full the [446] amount of their real indebtedness. Until such payment is tendered, there is apparently no equity in their favor, and certainly no defence to a common law action upon all the securities which they have issued. Judgment on the verdict.

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

Royal Bank of Liverpool v. Grand Junction Railroad, 100 Mass. 444 (Mass. 1868).

100 Mass. 444 (Royal Bank of Liverpool v. Grand Junction Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lynch v. Burt
132 F. 417 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
McClure v. Supreme Lodge
41 A.D. 131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Mutual Life Insurance v. Yates County Nat. Bank
54 N.Y.S. 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Mutual Life Insurance v. Yates County National Bank
35 A.D. 218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Burnham v. Windram
41 N.E. 305 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Costelo v. Crowell
134 Mass. 280 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Third National Bank v. Eastern Railroad
122 Mass. 240 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)
McLaughlin v. Randall
66 Me. 226 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1877)