Small v. Franklin Mining Co.

99 Mass. 277
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The plaintiff contends that his assessment has been paid by the indorsement and delivery of the check of Williams to the defendants’ clerk, and the subsequent conduct of the clerk in respect to it. The plaintiff had held the check for several days without presentment or inquiry, believing it" to be good, and represented to the defendants’ clerk that it was all right. It was presented for payment on the next day, and this presentment was seasonable. The drawer had failed, and his paper had gone to protest on the day when the plaintiff passed it to the defendants’ clerk. It was not therefore all right, as he represented it to be ; that is, it was not a check which would be paid on due presentment at the bank. It was a different thing in substance from what either party supposed it to be ; as much so as the bill of a broken bank which is passed and received as current.

The plaintiff was not entitled to such notice as must be given upon the dishonor of a bill of exchange. He was at most entitled to such reasonable notice as would save him from loss. It does not appear that the delay to give him notice, which was of a few days only, occasioned any damage to him, or that the value of the check was lessened.

There is no reason why the defendants should be enjoined from the collection of their assessment.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

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

Small v. Franklin Mining Co., 99 Mass. 277 (Mass. 1868).

99 Mass. 277 (Small v. Franklin Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lowell Co-operative Bank v. Sheridan
188 N.E. 636 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Davis v. H. S. & M. W. Snyder, Inc.
248 Mass. 387 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Reggio v. Warren
93 N.E. 805 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Hecht v. Batcheller
17 N.E. 651 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Henry v. Conley
48 Ark. 267 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1886)
Lord v. Bigelow
124 Mass. 185 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Hodgson v. Barrett
33 Ohio St. (N.S.) 63 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1877)
Brettun v. Fox
100 Mass. 234 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1868)