Slade v. Mutrie

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Slade v. Mutrie

30 N.E. 168, 156 Mass. 19, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 120

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 25, 1892·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The counsel for the defendant concedes that, by the law of this Commonwealth, the payment of a part of a debt after the whole debt has become payable is not a sufficient consideration to support a promise not under seal to discharge the remainder of the debt. Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283. Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray, 341. Potter v. Green, 6 Allen, 442. Grinnell v. Spink, 128 Mass. 25. Lathrop v. Page, 129 Mass. 19. Tyler v. Odd Fellows’ Relief Association, 145 Mass. 134, 137. Foakes v. Beer, 9 App. Cas. 605.

[21] The jury, in returning a general verdict for the defendant, must have found on the judge’s charge that the note was surrendered by the plaintiffs to the defendant that it might be can-celled, and that the plaintiffs intended by delivering the note to the defendant to give him the note and discharge the remainder of the debt.

For certain purposes, a bill of exchange or a promissory note is regarded in this Commonwealth, not merely as evidence of a debt, but as the representative of a debt, or the debt itself. Each may be the subject of a gift, but to constitute a gift there must be a delivery by the owner to the donee, with the'intention of passing the title. Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. 261. Sessions v. Moseley, 4 Cush. 87. Bates v. Kempton, 7 Gray, 382. Chase v. Redding, 13 Gray, 418. See Sheedy v. Roach, 124 Mass. 472; Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 425; Taft v. Bowker, 132 Mass. 277; McCann v. Randall, 147 Mass. 81; Cochrane v. Moore, 25 Q. B. D. 57; Gammon Theological Seminary v. Robbins, 128 Ind. 85.

It follows from this, that the delivery of a promissory note by the holder to the maker, with the intention of transferring to him the title to the note, is an extinguishment of the note, and a discharge of the obligation to pay it. Hale v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292. Stewart v. Hidden, 13, Minn. 43. Ellsworth v. Fogg, 35 Vt. 355. Vanderbeck v. Vanderbeck, 3 Stew. 265. Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 170. Exceptions overruled.

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

Field, C. J.

The counsel for the defendant concedes that, by the law of this Commonwealth, the payment of a part of a debt after the whole debt has become payable is not a sufficient consideration to support a promise not under seal to discharge the remainder of the debt. Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283. Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray, 341. Potter v. Green, 6 Allen, 442. Grinnell v. Spink, 128 Mass. 25. Lathrop v. Page, 129 Mass. 19. Tyler v. Odd Fellows’ Relief Association, 145 Mass. 134, 137. Foakes v. Beer, 9 App. Cas. 605.

[21] The jury, in returning a general verdict for the defendant, must have found on the judge’s charge that the note was surrendered by the plaintiffs to the defendant that it might be can-celled, and that the plaintiffs intended by delivering the note to the defendant to give him the note and discharge the remainder of the debt.

For certain purposes, a bill of exchange or a promissory note is regarded in this Commonwealth, not merely as evidence of a debt, but as the representative of a debt, or the debt itself. Each may be the subject of a gift, but to constitute a gift there must be a delivery by the owner to the donee, with the'intention of passing the title. Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. 261. Sessions v. Moseley, 4 Cush. 87. Bates v. Kempton, 7 Gray, 382. Chase v. Redding, 13 Gray, 418. See Sheedy v. Roach, 124 Mass. 472; Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 425; Taft v. Bowker, 132 Mass. 277; McCann v. Randall, 147 Mass. 81; Cochrane v. Moore, 25 Q. B. D. 57; Gammon Theological Seminary v. Robbins, 128 Ind. 85.

It follows from this, that the delivery of a promissory note by the holder to the maker, with the intention of transferring to him the title to the note, is an extinguishment of the note, and a discharge of the obligation to pay it. Hale v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292. Stewart v. Hidden, 13, Minn. 43. Ellsworth v. Fogg, 35 Vt. 355. Vanderbeck v. Vanderbeck, 3 Stew. 265. Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 170. Exceptions overruled.

Slade v. Mutrie, 30 N.E. 168, 156 Mass. 19, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 120 (Mass. 1892).

Pincite

30 N.E. 168 (Slade v. Mutrie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related