Scott v. Calkin
This text of 2 N.E. 675 (Scott v. Calkin) 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
W. Allen, J.
The indorsement of the note by the defendant Cherrington, under the circumstances proved, imported a guaranty of the payment of the note to the plaintiff, and gave [531]*531him authority to write, over her name, the contract implied by law; and this, if necessary at all, could be done during the trial. Josselyn v. Ames, 3 Mass. 274. Tenney v. Prince, 4 Pick. 385.
The finding of the court renders immaterial the question whether demand and notice were necessary.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 N.E. 675, 139 Mass. 529, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-calkin-mass-1885.